lundi, 17 décembre 2018

Christianity & Nationalism: A Cautionary Tale

By Robert HamptonEx: http://www.counter-currents.com

The arguments over identitarians should embrace or abandon Christianity is a question that still remains unresolved within the broader movement.

Last week, Quintilian entered the fray[2] and offered a reasoned argument for why white nationalists should embrace Christianity. The writer believes that white nationalists have fallen prey to the corrupted image of modern Christianity and fail to see the glory of the traditional faith.

According to Quintilian, Christianity is essential to the creation of an ethnostate and nationalists must strive to restore it to its traditional state. But identitarians should be wary of the possibility that a restored and conservative Christianity would be amenable to our cause.

In fact, this resurgent Christianity may be more inclined to fight against our movement, regardless of however much we profess our devotion to the faith. Quintilian deplores Vatican II as the event that destroyed the historical religion, but the Church was hostile to our beliefs many long before the bishops met in Rome in 1962. Take for instance the tragic tale of the Action Française.[1][3]

Charles Maurras’s reactionary nationalist movement wanted to restore the monarchy, end the separation of church and state, and uphold France’s traditional Catholic identity. It was firmly opposed to liberalism and many of its economic and political beliefs were firmly in line with Catholic social teaching. Maurras himself was an agnostic, but he argued for the necessity of the Catholic faith and was extremely careful in allaying clerical fears about his irreligion. This should have been a movement the Church fully supported, and in its early years, many clerics did. The movement provided most of the militant activists in Catholic battles against the forces of secularism and liberalism in the first decades of the 20th century.

Yet, many Church intellectuals began to suspect the Action Française of being too militant, too political, too nationalist, and too, hilariously enough, pagan. Clerics began to suspect the nationalists were drawing young Catholics to an ideology not controlled by the Church. Church leaders preferred a safer political outlet that directed the youth to follow the instructions of priests, not pro-Catholic agnostics.

In 1926, the Vatican issued a formal condemnation against the Action Française, put their publications on the index liborum prohibitorum, denied communion to anyone associated with the movement, and purged sympathizers from the clergy.

This was the pre-Vatican II church led by a conservative pope. Unlike any Right-wing movement today, Action Française had plenty of bishops who were willing to vouch for the proper Christianity of Maurras’s newspaper and politics. Right before the condemnation, the movement’s leaders pleaded with Catholic authorities that they were true to the faith. All of this was for naught as the Church happily kneecapped an allied movement that it could not control.

This condemnation was not enacted by liberal modernists who wanted the Church to be more tolerant and heterodox. Maurras was attacked for failing to adhere to traditional dogma and his lack of genuine piety. His movement was seen as dangerous because it made the youth too nationalist and too enamored with classical ideals. Catholic leaders did not oppose the movement because of its anti-liberalism–it was simply because Action wasn’t directly controlled by the Church and its unorthodox ideas were more popular than Church-sanctioned ones.

The Church was also hostile to the Falange for the same reasons it condemned the Action Française, along with the accusation[4] José Antonio Primo de Rivera was a “Bolshevik” for wanting sensible social reforms. Even though the Falange was firmly opposed to liberalism, defended the Church from Left-wing attacks, and emphasized Spain’s traditional Catholic identity, Church authorities did not like the movement because of its ultra-nationalism, alleged crypto-paganism, and masculine values.[2][5]

This hostility was par for the course for the conservative Pope Pius XI, who served as the vicar of Christ for much of this time period. Pius XI is considered a man who upheld traditional church teachings against the modernists Pope Pius X despised and is altogether a representative of the era Quintilian wishes the West to return to. However, Pius XI’s Christianity was strongly opposed[6] to racialism and nationalism. He spoke out several times against racial thinking, emphasizing that “catholic meant universal” and to divide the world by nationality and race is “contrary to the faith of Christ.” He ordered the drafting of an encyclical that would aggressively condemn racialism and anti-Semitism shortly before he died in 1939. The encyclical was never published, but many of its ideas found their way in the first encyclical of Pius XI’s successor, Pius XII. That work, Summi Pontifactus,[7]claimed there were no real racial differences as we are all part of one human race.

Quintilian blames modernism for the ultimate corruption of the Church, and this may be true when it comes to the god-awful liturgy of modern masses. But modernism is not what made the Church racially egalitarian and hostile toward nationalist movements. It is a feature that has been found in Christianity since the beginning and has only been tempered by the needs of secular society.

We can see this secular temperance in Poland and Hungary, the two exemplars of the Christian nationalism Quintilian envisions. The relationship between the Church and Eastern European nationalists isn’t as harmonious as one would imagine, but the Church restrains itself on their disagreements due to the demands of secular society. Poland’s leading Catholic bishops have long urged[8] the country to take in non-white migrants and to cease its efforts to purge communists from the judiciary. Some Catholic leaders in the country have gone as far as to deride[9] the immigration policies of the ruling government as “un-Christian.”

The Church hierarchy in Hungary is slightly better as they have argued[10] with Pope Francis over the pontiff’s aggressively pro-migrant stance. But even there, prominent Church leaders still urge[11] for more liberal immigration policies, albeit in more mild tones than that of their western colleagues.

The reason the Church is more muted in its criticism of nationalism in Poland and Hungary has less to do with them finding identitarian arguments in Thomas Aquinas than in their fear of alienating the flock. The vast majority of Poles and Hungarians want to keep their countries white, regardless of whether that desire comports to church teaching. Throughout the centuries, the Church has adapted its teachings and tone to reach the widest audience. Secular liberalism’s domination of Western Europe and America makes the Church try to sound nicer on LGBT issues and pitch God as your personal therapist.

In a society where nationalists control the discourse, the Church would similarly adapt to those circumstances, as Greg Johnson has pointed out[12]. But you first must gain power and dramatically change the culture to see this effect. A white nationalist-driven “restoration” of Christianity outside of a seizure of power is not going to happen. Institutional Christianity will continue to oppose us until that day comes, regardless of how Christian we appear today. Just ask Italy’s Lega, which seeks to put crucifixes back in classrooms and claims the Gospel as its foundation. The nationalist party receives only hostility[13] from the Church.

The resurgence of a more traditionalist Christianity wouldn’t necessarily help our cause. It would see us as an enemy and likely be as hostile to us as the corrupt institutions we face right now. As seen in the example of the Action Française, when you define yourself as a Christian movement, you become beholden to the opinions of priests and pastors. The clergy would want strict adherence to Christian dogma and would not broker “innovative” racialist readings of scripture and tradition. It would prefer we focus on side issues like banning contraceptives rather than protecting our people from demographic replacement. It would tells us African and Latin American Christians are our brothers and that there is no good reason to bar them from our countries.

To oppose these measures would risk condemnation and the deflation of our movement.

Identitarians must appeal to Christians in order to gain victory, but we mustn’t let ourselves be defined by Christianity. Our best arguments are secular and should appeal to Europeans regardless of whether they are Christian, pagan, or atheist. There is only so much energy and political capital we have and we must choose our battles wisely. To waste our limited energy on restoring Christianity to its pre-20th century state would be a serious error with no real rewards.

mardi, 18 septembre 2018

Technological Utopianism & Ethnic Nationalism

By Greg JohnsonEx: http://www.counter-currents.com

[1]Author’s Note:

This is the text of my talk at the fourth meeting of the Scandza Forum in Copenhagen, Denmark, on September 15, 2018. In my previous Scandza Forum talk[2], I argued that we need to craft ethnonationalist messages for all white groups, even Trekkies. This is my Epistle to the Trekkies. I want to thank everybody who was there, and everybody who made the Forum possible.

The idea of creating a utopian society through scientific and technological progress goes back to such founders of modern philosophy as Bacon and Descartes, although the idea was already hinted at by Machiavelli. But today, most people’s visions of technological utopia are derived from science fiction. With the notable exception of Frank Herbert’s Dune series[3], science fiction tends to identify progress with political liberalism and globalism. Just think of Star Trek, in which the liberal, multi-racial Federation is constantly battling against perennial evils like nationalism and eugenics. Thus it is worth asking: Is ethnic nationalism—which is illiberal and anti-globalist—compatible with technological utopianism or not?

My view is that technological utopianism is not only compatible with ethnic nationalism but also that liberalism and globalization undermine technological progress, and that the ethnostate is actually the ideal incubator for mankind’s technological apotheosis.

Before arguing these points, however, I need to say a bit about what technological utopianism entails and why people think it is a natural fit with globalization. The word utopia literally means nowhere and designates a society that cannot be realized. But the progress of science and technology are all about the conquest of nature, i.e., the expansion of man’s power and reach, so that utopia becomes attainable. Specific ambitions of scientific utopianism include the abolition of material scarcity, the exploration and settlement of the galaxy, the prolongation of human life, and the upward evolution of the human species.

It is natural to think that scientific and technological progress go hand in hand with globalization. Reality is one, therefore the science that understands reality and the technology that manipulates it must be one as well. Science and technology speak a universal language. They are cumulative collaborative enterprises that can mobilize the contributions of the best people from across the globe. So it seems reasonable that the road to technological utopia can only be impeded by national borders. I shall offer three arguments why this is not so.

1. Globalization vs. Innovation

I define globalization as breaking down barriers to sameness: the same market, the same culture, the same form of government, the same way of life—what Alexandre Kojève called the “universal homogeneous state.”

As Peter Thiel argues persuasively inZero to One[4], globalization and technological innovation are actually two very different modes of progress. Technological innovation creates something new. Globalization merely copies new things and spreads them around. Thiel argues, furthermore, that globalization without technological innovation is not sustainable. For instance, it is simply not possible for China and India to consume as much fossil fuel as the First World countries, but that is entailed by globalization within the present technological context. In the short run, this sort of globalization will have catastrophic environmental effects. In the long run, it will hasten the day when our present form of civilization collapses when fossil fuels are exhausted. To stave off this apocalypse, we need new innovations, particularly in the area of energy.

The most important technological innovations of the twentieth century are arguably splitting the atom and the conquest of space. Neither was accomplished by private enterprise spurred by consumer demand in a global liberal-democratic society. Instead, they were created by rival governments locked in hot and cold warfare: first the United States and its Allies against the Axis powers in World War II, then the United States and the capitalist West versus the Soviet Bloc until the collapse of Communism in 1989–1991.

Indeed, one can argue that the rivalry between capitalism and communism began to lose its technological dynamism because of the statesmanship of Richard Nixon, who began détente with the USSR with the Strategic Arms Limitations Talks in 1969, then went to China in 1971, lessening the threat that the Communist powers would recoalesce into a single bloc. Détente ended with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative could have spurred major technological advances, but merely threatening it was enough to persuade Gorbachev to seek a political solution. So the ideal situation for spurring technological growth is political rivalry without political resolution, thereby necessitating immense expenditures on research and development to gain technological advantages.

Since the collapse of Communism and the rise of a unipolar liberal-democratic world order, however, the driving force of technological change has been consumer demand. Atomic energy and sending men into space have been pretty much abandoned, and technological progress has been primarily channeled into information technology, which has made some of us more productive but for the most part just allows us to amuse ourselves with smartphones as society declines around us.

But we are not going to be able to Tweet ourselves out of looming environmental crises and Malthusian traps. Only fundamental innovations in energy technology will do the trick. And only the state, which can command enormous resources and unite a society around a common purpose, has a record of accomplishment in this area.

Of course none of the parties to the great conflicts that spurred technological growth were ethnonationalists in the strict sense, not even the Axis powers. Indeed, liberal democracy and communism were merely rival visions of global society. But when rival visions of globalization are slugging it out for power, that means that the globe is divided among a plurality of different political actors.

Pluralism and rivalry have spurred states to the greatest technological advances in history. Globalization, pacification, and liberalism have not only halted progress but have bred complacency in the face of potential global disasters. A global marketplace will never take mankind to the stars. It will simply distract us until civilization collapses and the Earth becomes a scorched boneyard.

2. Innovation vs. Cost-Cutting

In economics, productivity is defined as a mathematical formula: outputs divided by inputs, i.e., the cost per widget. Mathematically speaking, you can increase productivity either by making labor more productive, chiefly through technological innovation, or simply by cutting costs.

Most of the productivity gains that come from economic globalization are a matter of cost-cutting, primarily cutting the costs of labor. The Third World has a vast supply of cheap labor. Economic globalization allows the free movement of labor and capital. Businesses can cut labor costs by moving factories overseas or by importing new workers to drive down wages at home.

Historically speaking, the greatest economic spur to technological innovation has been high labor costs. The way to raise labor costs is to end economic globalization[5], by cutting off immigration and by putting high tariffs on foreign manufactured goods. In short, we need economic nationalism. Indeed, only economic nationalism can lead to a post-scarcity economy.

What exactly is a “post-scarcity economy,” and how can we get there from here? First of all, not all forms of scarcity can be abolished. Unique and handcrafted items will always be scarce. There will only be one Mona Lisa. Scarcity can only be abolished with identical, mass-produced items. Second, the cost of these items will only approach zero in terms of labor. Basically, we will arrive at a post-scarcity economy when machines put everyone involved in mass production out of work. But the machines, raw materials, and energy used in production will still have some costs. Thus the post-scarcity economy will arrive through innovation in robotics and energy production. The best image of a post-scarcity world is the “replicator” in Star Trek, which can change the atomic structure of basic inputs to materialize things out of thin air.

Of course workers who are replaced by machines can’t be allowed to starve. The products of machines have to be consumed by someone. Production can be automated but consumption cannot. It would be an absurdist dystopia if mechanization led to the starvation of workers, so consumption had to be automated as well. One set of robots would produce things, then another set of robots would consume them and add zeroes to the bank balances of a few lonely plutocrats.

To make the post-scarcity economy work, we need to ensure that people can afford to buy its products. There are two basic ways this can be done.

First, the productivity gains of capital have to be shared with the workers, through rising wages or shrinking work weeks. When workers are eliminated entirely, they need to receive generous pensions.

Second, every economic system requires a medium of exchange. Under the present system, the state gives private banks the ability to create money and charge interest on its use. The state also provides a whole range of direct payments to individuals: welfare, old-age pensions, etc. A universal basic income[6] is a direct government payment to all citizens that is sufficient to ensure basic survival in a First-World country. Such an income would allow the state to ensure economic liquidity, so that every product has a buyer, while eliminating two very costly middlemen: banks and social welfare bureaucracies.

All of this sounds pretty far out. But it is only unattainable in the present globalized system, in which cost-cutting is turning high-tech, First World industrial economies into low-tech Third World cheap-labor plantation economies. Only economic nationalism can spur the technological innovations necessary to create a post-scarcity economy by raising labor costs, both through immigration controls and tariff walls against cheap foreign manufactured goods.

3. Ethnonationalism & Science

So far we have established that scientific and technological progress are undermined by globalization and encouraged by nationalist economic policies and the rivalries between nations and civilizational blocs. But we need a more specific argument to establish that ethnonationalism is especially in harmony with scientific and technological progress.

My first premise is: No form of government is fully compatible with scientific and technological progress if it is founded on dogmas that are contrary to fact. For instance, the republic of Oceania might have a population of intelligent and industrious people, an excellent educational system, first rate infrastructure, and a booming economy. But if the state religion of Oceania mandates that the Earth is flat and lies at the center of the universe, Oceania is not going to take us to the stars.

My second premise is: The advocacy of racially and ethnically diverse societies—regardless of whether they have liberal or conservative regimes—is premised on the denial of political experience and the science of human biological diversity.

The history of human societies offers abundant evidence that putting multiple ethnic groups under the same political system is a recipe for otherwise avoidable ethnic tensions and conflicts. Furthermore, science indicates that the most important factors for scientific and technological advancement—intelligence and creativity—are primarily genetic, and they are not equally distributed among the races. Finally, Genetic Similarity Theory predicts that the most harmonious and happy societies will be the most genetically homogeneous, with social conflict increasing with genetic diversity.

Denying these facts is anti-scientific in two ways. First and most obviously, it is simply the refusal to look at objective facts that contradict the dogma that diversity improves society. Second, basing a society on this dogma undermines the genetic and social conditions necessary for progress and innovation, for instance by lowering the average IQ and creating greater social conflict. Other things being equal, these factors will make a society less likely to foster scientific and technological innovation.

My third premise is: Ethnonationalism is based on both political experience and the science of human biological diversity—and does not deny any other facts. Therefore, ethnonationalism is more compatible with scientific and technological progress than are racially and ethnically diverse societies—other things being equal.

Of course some research and development projects require so much money and expertise that they can only be undertaken by large countries like the United States, China, India, or Russia. Although we can predict with confidence that all of these societies would improve their research and development records if they were more racially and culturally homogeneous, even in their present states they can accomplish things that small, homogeneous ethnostates simply cannot dream of.

For instance, if a country of two million people like Slovenia were to adopt ethnonationalism, it would probably outperform a more diverse society with the same size and resources in research and development. But it would not be able to colonize Mars. However, just as small countries can defend themselves from big countries by creating alliances, small states can work together on scientific and technological projects too big to undertake on their own. No alliance is stronger than its weakest member. Since diversity is a weakness and homogeneity is a strength, we can predict that cooperative research and development efforts among ethnostates will probably be more fruitful than those among diverse societies.

Now someone might object that one can improve upon the ethnostate by taking in only high-IQ immigrants from races. Somehow Americans went to the Moon without importing Asians and Indians. Such people are being imported today for two reasons. First, importing foreign brains allows us to evade problems with producing our own, namely, dysgenic fertility and the collapse of American STEM education, largely due to political correctness, i.e., racial integration and the denial of biological intelligence differences. Second, the productivity gains attributed to diversity in technology are simply due to cost-cutting. But the real answer is: The Internet allows whites to collaborate with the best scientists around the world. But we don’t need to live with them.

To sum up: The idea that technological utopia will go hand-in-hand with the emergence of a global homogeneous society is false. The greatest advances in technology were spurred by the rivalries of hostile political powers, and with the emergence of a unipolar world, technological development has been flagging.

The idea that technological utopia goes hand-in-hand with liberal democracy is false. Liberalism from its very inception has been opposed to the idea that there is a common good of society. Liberalism is all about empowering individuals to pursue private aims and advantages. It denies that the common good exists; or, if the common good exists, liberalism denies that it is knowable; or if the common good exists and is knowable, liberalism denies that it can be pursued by the state, but instead will be brought about by an invisible hand if we just allow private individuals to go about their business.

The only thing that can bring liberal democrats together to pursue great common aims is the threat of war. This is what sent Americans to the Moon. America’s greatest technological achievements were fostered by the government, not private enterprise, and in times of hot and cold war, not peace. Since the end of the Cold War, however, victory has defeated us. America is no longer a serious country.

The solution, though, is not to go back to war, but to junk liberalism and return to the classical idea that there is a common good that can and must be pursued by the state. A liberal democracy can only be a serious country if someone like the Russians threatens to nuke them every minute of the day. Normal men and normal societies pursue the common good, because once one is convinced something really is good, one needs no additional reason to pursue it. But if you need some extra incentives, consider the environmental devastation and civilizational collapse that await us as the fossil fuel economy continues to expand like an algae bloom to its global limits. That should concentrate the mind wonderfully.

The idea that technological utopia will go hand-in-hand with global capitalism is false. Globalization has undermined technological innovation by allowing businesses to raise profits merely by cutting costs. The greatest advances in manufacturing technology have been spurred by high labor costs, which are products of a strong labor movement, closed borders, and protectionism.

Finally, the idea that technological utopianism will go hand-in-hand with racially and ethnically diverse societies is false. This is where ethnonationalism proves its superiority. Diversity promotes social conflict and removes barriers to dysgenic breeding. The global average IQ is too low to create a technological utopia. Global race-mixing will make Europeans more like the global average. Therefore, it will extinguish all dreams of progress. Ethnonationalists, however, are actually willing to replace dysgenic reproductive trends with eugenic ones, to ensure that every future generation has more geniuses, including scientific ones. And if you need an extra incentive, consider the fact that China is pursuing eugenics while in the West it is fashionable to adopt Haitian babies. Ethnonationalism, moreover, promotes social harmony and cohesion, which make possible coordinated efforts toward common goals.

What sort of society will conquer scarcity, conquer death, and settle the cosmos? A society that practices economic nationalism to encourage automation. A homogeneous, high-IQ society with eugenic rather than dysgenic reproductive trends. A harmonious, cohesive, high-trust society that can work together on common projects. An illiberal society that is willing to mobilize its people and resources to achieve great common aims. In short, if liberal democracy and global capitalism are returning us to the mud, it is ethnonationalism that will take us to the stars.

The Worker State: Ernst Junger, National Bolshevism, And The New Worker

The “National Bolsheviks” of the Weimar period rallied around this cry. Sparta represented a type of porto-Prussian socialism, with the entire social body based around the all-male military and its campaigns. Potsdam represented true Prussian socialism, while Moscow represented what many thinkers in the 1920s and 1930s considered to be the world’s inevitable future.

This is a very concise rendering of a complex topic, around which there is confusion.

Much of this confusion stems from the fact that National Bolshevism did not have a guiding text or any kind of magnum opus for the proliferation of a workers’ state ruled by nationalist sentiment. The closest to such a founding document is Ernst Junger’s The Worker (1932), a long essay that mixes Marx with Nietzsche and Heidegger. Notably, The Worker was denounced by the Nazi Party for undermining its emphasis on biological race as the unifying glue of the new German state. But for Junger, work and workers not only created a new race through their very specific Typus (a German word closely meaning “typical,” as in typical representative), but future civilization would have to be a work-democracy in order to sustain itself in the face of technology unmoored from its original ideal as an engine of human progress.

To understand The Worker and the origins of National Bolshevism, one must recognize the truly revolutionary character of the First World War. Between 1914 and 1918, Junger (who experienced the war firsthand as a lieutenant in the 73rd Infantry Regiment) argues that the old bourgeoisie order of the nineteenth century was blown to bits by advanced artillery, poison gas, and machine guns. Along with this death, two nineteenth century ideals, namely nationalism and socialism, were also obliterated. In their wake came a new type of man—a violent individual who had mixed with all classes in the trenches. This “unknown soldier” rubbed elbows with Prussian Junkers, the sons of French Protestant immigrants, Catholic peasants from Bavaria and the Rhineland, and working class socialists from Berlin, Hanover, and Bremen. Through death and action, these various classes melded in order to create “the worker,” an individual who is neither an individualistic consumer (the prize desired by all capitalist democracies), nor a member of the mass (the ideal of the materialistic Marxists).

The characteristics that are valued have changed; they are of a simpler, dumber nature, which suggests the emergence of a will to race-formation…to produce a certain typus whose endowment is more standardized and more aligned to the tasks of an order determined by the total-work character. This is connected to how the possibilities of life in general decrease, to an advancing degree, in the interest of a singular possibility…[1]

The goal of this new “race” (Junger eschews a biological explanation for race, arguing that in the worker, the only thing that matters is whether or not the individual worker is excellent at performing his work) is to create the work-state. This state is beyond liberal capitalism and internationalist communism. Its sole purpose is to facilitate the existence of the worker—the poet-warrior-priest ideal that Junger compares to the knight orders of the Middle Ages and the Jesuit priests of the Counter-Reformation who braved foreign lands in order to spread the Gospel.

Once we have recognized what is needed now, namely, assertion and triumph…even readiness for utter collapse within a thoroughly dangerous world, then we will know which tasks are to take control of every kind of production, from the highest to the simplest. And the more life can be led in a cynical, Spartan, Prussian, or Bolshevist way, the better it will be. The established standard is to be found in the way the worker leads his life. It is not a matter of improving this way of living, but of conferring upon it a highest, decisive meaning.[2]

Put into simpler language, Junger sees the ideal worker not as a member of the working class (“class” is, after all, a liberal concept from the nineteenth century), but rather as a type of dedicated monk that sees existence as based on work. This means that workers are dedicated thoroughly to their work, almost as if work in the technological age is akin to Calvin’s “calling of God.” Unsurprisingly, Junger’s worker ideal closely mirrors the “Christian Sparta” of Puritan Massachusetts, where all things were done in order to uphold the Anglican Church’s special communion with God. In that society as in Prussia, order, duty, and work consumed all notions of liberty, freedom, or leisure. This is desirable, for Junger notes that “the measure of freedom possessed by any force corresponds precisely to the measure of obligation assigned to it.”[4] The negative “freedom from” and the positive “freedom to” are both undesirable unless said freedoms are attached to overriding obligations. To obey a higher law is the only freedom worth experiencing.

Such idealism is consciously divorced from all aspects of liberalism. In order for Junger’s desired “total mobilization” of society, all traces of liberalism must be eradicated in order for a work-democracy to form.

Much to the chagrin of the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), Junger does not see internationalist Marxism as the vanguard against the bourgeoisie. For Junger, the “Soviet” revolutions that swept through Germany in 1919 were thoroughly liberal in character—they conformed to liberal notions of individual freedom, they fought on behalf of material prosperity, and they accepted the liberal notions of “art” and “civilization.” The fact that striking workers and soldiers marched through Germany with copies of Faust in their knapsacks highlighted how thoroughly liberal culture had permeated the so-called “worker movement.”[3]

Junger was not the only German thinker who recognized the inherent weaknesses of Marxist-derived communism. Ernst Niekisch, who served the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic of 1919, saw in the very same Freikorps troops who put down the Munich Soviet Republic the ideal man for his movement. In contrast to Robert G.L. Waite, who saw in the Freikorps a nihilistic movement, Thomas Weber, in his new book Becoming Hitler, sees the Freikorps as the forefront of a new revolutionary movement that actively sought to stop both the KPD from importing Russian-style Bolshevism and Bavarian reactionaries from bringing back the failed Hohenzollern dynasty.

Niekisch would become the greatest propagandist for National Bolshevism during the Weimar era. His short-lived journal Widerstand would publish Junger and other German writers who wanted to mix the austere radicalism of the Bolsheviks with that frontline soldier’s dedication to nation.

Karl Radek, who saw in nationalism the perfect vehicle for mass mobilization, was all but excommunicated from the communist movement in Germany for delivering a speech in 1923 that lionized Leo Schlageter, a Freikorps officer and early supporter of the National Socialists who died while fighting the French following their military takeover of the Ruhr in 1923. In “Leo Schlageter: The Wanderer into the Void,” Radek encouraged the Communists to seek out men like Schlageter rather than either pacifistic academics or material-minded industrial workers.

The way in which he [Schlageter] risked his life speaks on his behalf, and proves that he was convinced he was serving the German people. but Schlageter thought he was best serving the people by helping to restore the mastery of the class which had hitherto led the German people, and had brought such terrible misfortune upon them.[5]

For Radek, brave Germans must be taught to think in national class terms first. Niekisch agreed, but he placed a much greater emphasis on nationalism than did Radek. In the pages of Widerstand, Niekisch wrote paeans to the glories of the Prussian spirit and the traditional German resistance to bourgeoisie society. Junger went much further in synchronizing radical nationalism with “elemental” socialism. For Junger, liberal society is against everything “elemental.” Liberalism seeks security, while elemental life seeks adventure. Elementalism often seems like romanticism. Junger praises “elemental” men who seek to live in the untrammeled wilderness or who volunteer for the French Foreign Legion. The Worker is a romantic text at its core, and Junger’s thinking privileges action, sacrifice, and philosophical poverty (if not also material poverty) over the riches produced by capital and global trade.

As hard to digest as The Worker is, some of Junger’s key points bear re-reading. A will to power is not enough, Junger writes. An example of the truth of this view can be seen in the current sex scandals rocking Hollywood and Washington. Such accusations, whether true or not, are emblematic of a female will to power that is encouraged by the capitalist class that understands that single women make better, more pliable workers than masculine men. However, as much as these accusations are helping to dethrone men in certain places of power, a new female boss or a more feminine economy is unlikely to change anything in any meaningful way. In fact, things will almost certainly change for the worse because this new hierarchy is not the result of merit. In order for a will to power to matter, a new “race” must exist in order to carry this power forward. For Junger, this race must only contain the best of a worker typus; if it is based on anything other than practical skill, it is doomed to fail.

Another important point that Junger makes in The Worker is that liberal democracies are the preserve of cowards who continually place unfounded faith in their own systems. After all, arms limitations and attempts at universal governance after World War I did not stop war. Similarly, the theory that “democracies do not fight democracies” could be taken by some to suggest that warfare against non-democracies is justified under the guise of creating new democracies. The international system be damned, Junger says; it is better to let workers become the new Dominican monks, except with a higher intolerance of heresy.

The Worker represents the best of the National Bolshevist ideal. Rather than graph jingoistic nationalism onto the shibboleths of Marxian socialism, Junger’s thought concerns how to defeat all traces of outdated liberalism, socialism, and other modes of nineteenth century thought. A new type of worker—a worker not bound by class, but by an organic desire to increase work and see everything as work—is the best antidote to the shape-shifting bourgeoisie. Creating this new worker will be difficult, but The Worker notes that peasants and workers in the twentieth century have shown that that they are neither the small capitalists of the liberal imagination nor the ardent proletarians of Marxist daydreams. A socialist Benito Mussolini saw that workers flocked to nationalist calls for war faster than their middle class counterparts, while Junger notes that when the aristocracy tried to used the peasantry as a bulwark against the bourgeoisie by instituting grain tariffs in the nineteenth century, the peasants did not respond to economic stimuli and instead preferred to stick to older economic arrangements.[6]

Without discipline, a desire for collective action, and a hatred of liberal freedom, a work-state cannot exist. Ergo, in order for a work-state to flourish, workers must acquire a new consciousness. This consciousness must also include action in the form of constant work, whatever that work may be.

For us, as Americans, much can be adopted from The Worker. In the book, Junger praises the unbridled energy of the American settler-workers who tamed the West and built the wealthiest state in human history all within one hundred years. Junger also notes that Soviet Russia’s economic success during the late 1920s was because so many American technocrats flooded the country, thus showing the Russian peasant what quasi-religious attachment to craft can accomplish.

Americans have long been known for their work ethic. This is to be praised, but it needs to be channeled. American workers should no longer work for the glory of the internationalist state. American workers should no longer toil away for the benefit of capitalism or even for the benefit of their own material prosperity. These goals, while understandable, are in fact invisible prisons. According to The Worker, a new, healthier American state would be concerned only with a total mobilization towards work and towards living an “elemental” life.

For Junger, this means America embrace Sparta and the unwavering path of duty.

Johann Gottfried Herder was an 18th-century German philosopher, theologian, translator, and critic. He wrote on many subjects: political philosophy, philosophy of mind, philosophy of history, metaphysics, linguistics, philology, art, religion, mythology, and music. He influenced several philosophers and his ideas form the basis of the modern disciplines of linguistics and cultural anthropology.

Herder was born in 1744 to humble origins in East Prussia. He studied for two years at the University of Königsberg, where he met Johann Georg Hamann and became a favored pupil of Immanuel Kant. He then became a clergyman and teacher. A few years later he embarked on a journey throughout Europe (see Journal meiner Reise im Jahre 1769). While in Strasbourg in 1770 he met Goethe, whom his works strongly influenced. Herder became a leading figure in the Sturm und Drang literary movement. In 1776 he was made general superintendent of the clergy in Weimar and lived there for the remainder of his life.

It is only within the past two decades that much of Herder’s work has been translated into English. The texts in this book have not appeared before in English translation. This collection is also the first to compile Herder’s writings on music into one volume. It contains nine essays, each prefaced with a brief introduction by the translator. The book also contains an appendix with translations of the lyrics of 24 folk songs included in Herder’s anthology of folk music.

The first section of the book contains Herder’s essays on folk songs. Herder believed that folk music embodied a nation’s Volksgeist, or the innate character of a people as expressed through culture and civilization. In his magnum opus, Ideas on the Philosophy of the History of Mankind, he articulates the idea that each people possesses a distinct Volksgeist (he used the phrase “Geist des Volkes”) and national character. He is considered the originator of this concept.

Thus Herder conceived of the nation first and foremost as an organic community bound together by a common culture and heritage. During his lifetime, Germany was divided into hundreds of independently governed territories whose governing elites imitated the customs of the French nobility and frequently feuded, and a century earlier the nation had been ravaged by the Thirty Years War and other religious conflicts. Herder’s notion of the Volksgeist laid the foundations of German nationalism and contributed to the growth of German national consciousness during the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.

Although Herder was influenced by Enlightenment thinking, he rejected the Enlightenment notion that every individual is fundamentally alike and that all people share certain moral values and psychological characteristics by default. He believed that human beings vary greatly depending upon their respective cultural contexts and that furthermore one’s cultural background (language, heritage, customs, physical environment, etc.) indelibly shapes one’s character; this occurs on the level of both the individual and the group. (The implicitly ethnic nature of his idea of the Volksgeist, despite his lack of overt racialism in a biological sense, is evinced particularly by his mention of how climate affects how groups evolve physically and mentally over time.)

This led him both to reject the homogenizing form of cosmopolitanism embraced by many Enlightenment thinkers and to advocate cultural pluralism and oppose imperialism and chauvinism (see This Too a Philosophy of History for the Formation of Humanity). For this reason he is sometimes portrayed as a forerunner of modern multiculturalist progressivism. But Herder’s concept of pluralist nationalism runs counter to the modern promotion of open borders and globalization, which pose a threat to the existence of distinct national cultures and the homogeneity of individual groups. Others have pointed out that the cosmopolitanism espoused by modern Western liberals is ironically a form of “white supremacy” as it assumes that all peoples of the world, from African tribesmen to Mongolian goat-herders, uphold Western values and aspire toward Western civilizational standards.

Herder’s belief that the Volksgeist of a nation was expressed in its ancient poetry and folk music led him to take an interest in reviving ancient folk songs. In the first essay, he argues that folk songs must be collected and anthologized in order to “catch a spark from the spirit of the German fatherland, albeit buried in ash and rubble” and preserve folk songs before they were lost to history. He compiled folk songs into two anthologies: Volkslieder in 1774 and Alte Volkslieder in 1778 and 1779, first published serially as four volumes and later as two larger volumes (a second edition was published posthumously in 1807, titled Stimmen der Völker in ihren Liedern). The anthology contained 194 folk songs from a variety of European countries and was an influential text throughout the nineteenth century. Herder’s translation of the text of the Scottish folk song “Edward, Edward” inspired Brahms’s Ballade, op. 10, no. 1 and Schubert’s “Eine Altschottische Ballade.”

Herder’s conception of folk music encompassed ancient epic poetry as well as traditional folk songs. The epilogue contains a brief excerpt from his Treatise on the Origin of Language, in which he concludes at one point that human language evolved from the primitive capacity for song (a theory that a number of modern studies corroborate). Epic poems were of course originally meant to be sung. Herder writes of Homer: “The greatest singer of the Greeks, Homer, is at the same time the greatest folk poet.” He most admired the Homeric epics, the Norse Edda, the Nibelungenlied, The Poems of Ossian, and the Old Testament.

Therefore this book also includes essays by Herder on epic poems. Most notable of these is one containing fragments from his Briefwechsel über Ossian und die Lieder alter Völker (Correspondence about Ossian and the Songs of Ancient Peoples), published in 1773 in the manifesto Von deutscher Art und Kunst (which also contained his essay on Shakespeare and essays by Goethe and Justus Möser). The manifesto outlines a path toward creating German art, literature, and music reflecting Germany’s national past.

The Poems of Ossian are a cycle of epic poems purportedly collected and translated (from Gaelic to English) by the Scottish poet James Macpherson. The character of Ossian was based on legends surrounding Oisín, a warrior-poet in Irish mythology. While the authenticity of the poems was disputed, the work was lauded by many as a successor to the Homeric epics.

To Herder, the question of whether the poems were authentic was secondary. He was more concerned with the issue of translation and how translating the original Gaelic into English and then into German would refract the original through a different lens. He criticized Michael Denis’s German translation of the poems on the charge that his scholarly imitation of Greek hexameter formalized the verse and tamed its “wild” character, saying that his translation lacked “feeling for sound or singing, no real sense of fresh air from the hills of Caledonia” and did not reflect the spirit of the poems’ source material, which consisted of folk songs sung by the common people.

Herder believed that “wild” peoples produced literature that was more lively, lyrical, and free. The ancients were constantly forced to confront nature, which imbued their art and poetry with a vitality that modern men lack. He mentions in the essay that he read Ossian while standing on a ship’s deck during a rough storm and writes that “in the midst of such experiences the Old Norse singers and the bards emerge from your reading entirely unlike anything you might experience in a professor’s classroom.” The direct contact with the elements at sea and the imminent possibility of danger and death approximated the circumstances that originally gave rise to epic poetry.

Herder revered the ancients and did not adhere to the idea that history consists of a never-ending upward march of progress with each civilization merely serving as a stepping-stone to a higher one. Nonetheless he was not a primitivist. He believed that humans were distinguished from animals by their potential to cultivate “humanity,” or civilization, and welcomed progress in the arts and sciences. However he saw the idea of universal progress as a falsehood and held that different civilizations evolve at different rates. Thus in order for human perfectability to be achieved, each nation (and each individual within a nation) must fulfill its own destiny and evolve according to its own internal logic, which entails affirming the separateness of different nations.

The Ossian poems inspired Herder to embark on his first collection of folk songs. It was in his essay on Ossian that Herder coined the term Volkslied. He believed that German art should emulate Macpherson’s method of gathering material from folk tradition and using this as a foundation upon which to create something new. He criticized German poets and writers of his day for aping foreign literary conventions rather than drawing from ancient native traditions.

It is perhaps worth noting that Herder’s edition of the Ossian poems contained extensive annotations written by Melchiorre Cesarotti, who had translated the work into Italian. Cesarotti’s notes bore the influence of Giambattista Vico, which in turn may have indirectly influenced Herder. This is notable given that Vico’s work was virtually unknown at the time.

There are certain parallels as well as points of divergence between the two. Both were philosophers of the Enlightenment who were critical of Enlightenment thinking.[1] Both prefigured nineteenth-century historicism: in the words of Robert T. Clark, “it was Vico’s conviction that by examining the available documents on the subject of primitive culture he could discover a ‘metaphysics of history’ which would sweep the ground from under the Cartesian-Protestant position. . . . Vico and Herder did not evaluate the culture of a given age on the basis of their own–the error of the Cartesians–but instead sought for an adequate statement of its essential characteristics as revealed in a careful study of available information.”[2] (Vico reconciled this particularist view with the universality of his cyclical philosophy history by distinguishing between convention and human nature.) Like Herder, Vico believed that myth was central to civilization and saw works of literature and art as artefacts that shed light on the entire cultural organism from which they arose. He associated each age of history (the age of gods, the age of heroes, and the age of man) with different patterns of language: hieroglyphs, signs, and symbols; simile and metaphor; and irony respectively.

Some of the similarities between Vico and Herder are coincidental (e.g., their similar ideas on the origin of language) but it is possible that Herder’s theories of interpretation were indirectly influenced by Vico to some extent.

Herder’s interest in ancient epic poetry also led him to translate The Poem of the Cid (El Cantar del Mio Cid) into German. Excerpts from his translation are included in the book. The original poem is thought to have been written in the twelfth century. The eponymous hero of El Cid was a Castilian nobleman and military leader during the Reconquista. He was known for his skill as a military commander in expanding the territory of Castile and became a Castilian national hero. The poem chronicles the time roughly beginning with his exile from Castile in 1081 and ending shortly before his death in 1099.

Herder sought to create a bridge between past and present by evoking the heroism and nationalism of the original verse in German amid the atmosphere of modern Europe. Bohlman claims that “when nineteenth- and twentieth-century European linguists and historians set out in search of national epics, Herder’s Cid was their inspiration and their model.”

Music remains in the background in Herder’s Der Cid, both in terms of his attention to the sound of the poem (cadence, rhyme, assonance, etc.) and the invocation of music itself throughout, as in this stanza:

Priests and soldiers alike, in full voice, Sang mass for the Cid, And trumpets loudly heralded The holy secret; Cymbals rang, kettle drums roared, So that the holy archways Shook; a renewed courage of heroes Filled the hearts of all the soldiers, The three hundred so intrepid, To enter into struggle against the Moors, The Moors in Valencia.

This follows a dramatic scene in which El Cid forces King Alfonso VI to take an oath swearing that he was not the one who murdered his brother, the former king. Alfonso was offended by the public challenge to his honor and exiled El Cid from Castile, stripping him of his land and possessions. The “three hundred” refer to the men who remained loyal to him. El Cid and his 300 men went on a number of military campaigns and eventually conquered Valencia.

Herder also translated Handel’s Messiah, which he called “truly a Christian epic in music.” As a theologian and clergyman, Herder saw religion and music as being closely intertwined. Martin Luther (whom Herder strongly admired, though he lamented that Luther did not found a German national church) likewise held that music was “next to theology” and was divine in origin. Two of the essays here discuss sacred music. Herder’s criticism of the Pietists (a contemporary Lutheran movement) gives an idea of his views on sacred music in general: “Pietism has reduced sacred song to chamber song with sweet, feminine melodies, filled with tender sensitivity and rubbish, thus stripping it of all the majesty that commands the heart, and making it a weakling at play.”

The final essay in this book consists of the chapter on music from Herder’s last major work, Kalligone, in which he outlines his philosophy of aesthetics. The chapter is essentially a defence of music as an art form. Here he objects to Kant’s claim in The Critique of Judgment that music ranks below the visual and literary arts on account of the fleeting duration of sounds and the inherently passive nature of aural perception compared to visual perception and argues that these factors in fact render music more capable of creating an individual impression upon the listener from within. He sees music as an art of movement (“arrival and departure, becoming and being“) whose temporality enables it to best capture the fluctuations of human emotion and realize the sublime. On a broader level he argues that Kant’s a priori principles regarding aesthetic judgment led him to erect false barriers between cognition and sensation, between types of consciousness, experience, etc.

Herder repeatedly states that music, art, and poetry all reflect the character of their creators and the nations to which they belong but also remarks that the reverse is true in equal measure. He writes of poets: “A poet is the creator of the people in whose midst he writes: he gives them a world to see and has their souls in his hand in order to guide them into that world” [italics Herder’s]. Thus nations are built by artists and poets, whose works serve as national founding documents.

Notes

1. See Isaiah Berlin’s Three Critics of the Enlightenment: Vico, Hamann, and Herder.

lundi, 16 janvier 2017

Tradition, Politics and National Identity

By Gwendolyn Taunton

Ex: https://manticorepress.net

This article was originally published in The Radical Tradition (out of print).

The issue of political identity is not often connected with spiritual sources in the eyes of the average citizen; however on an imperceptible, inextricable level, the two are combined in a myriad of ways which escape the notice of many. Indeed, the application of spiritual and/or mythical elements being deployed as part of a political agenda is nothing new, for it can found in a diverse range of historical epochs from the time of the Roman Empire to contemporary politics. The parallel I wish to draw is between the concept of the Primordial Tradition (standing as a sui generis argument) to the theory of primordialism in political science, with the specific intent of identifying and providing a new definition of cultural identity that is intended to bypass both the political left/right dichotomy and approach identity from a ‘top-down’ perspective, as opposed to a flat, unilateral model of left/right duality. The need for a new theory of national identity is becoming one of paramount importance in the increasingly isolated world of mass ‘individualism’ which has come to predominate the modern world. In the process of cross-comparison between Traditions and primordialism, a clear narrative of interaction will be extrapolated to reveal a blue print for the construction of a new form of political theory that seeks to redefine the common elements in national identities. To begin the discourse, a brief introduction to the twin theories of the Primordial Tradition and primordialism is required.The Primordial Tradition is rightly defined as being a sui generis argument meaning that it is self-generating – a concept which originated with Durkheim. Essentially a sui generis argument is classified as self-perpetuating because it originates from a concept which is deemed to be existent from the beginning. In the sociology of Émile Durkheim, a sui generis is used to illustrate his theory on social existence. Durkheim states that the main object of sociology is to study social facts. These social facts can only be explained by other social facts. They have a meaning of their own and cannot be reduced to psychological or biological factors. Social facts have a meaning of their own, and are ‘sui generis’. Durkheim also states that when one takes an organization and replaces some individuals with others, the essence of the organization does not necessarily change. It can happen, for example, that over the course of a few decades, the entire staff of an organization is replaced, while the organization still retains its distinctive character. Durkheim does not limit this thought to organizations, but extends it to the whole society: he maintains that society, as it was there before any particular living individual was born, is independent of all individuals. His sui generis (its closest English meaning in this sense being ‘independent’) society will furthermore continue its existence after the individual ceases to interact with it. Society and culture, are therefore naturally arising phenomena.Sui generis is a Latin expression, literally meaning “of its own kind/genus”, or unique in its characteristics. In this circumstance spirituality and Tradition are deemed to be archetypal concepts which are inherent in the psyche of humans from the beginning of the evolution of consciousness itself. Like, society, they are naturally occurring. This implies a relationship with Jungian thought and links it to Jung’s theory of the subconscious and archetypes as symbols, which whilst are not possessed of a corporeal existence, act as what he called ‘psychoids’. These psychoids are not themselves alive but possess an abstract existence which influences the nature of human thought despite the fact that they themselves are not sentient. This idea is similar to that which was expressed by Plato when he discussed the realm of Ideals in which abstract concepts take on an existence in a theoretical plane of reality. This idea of a Primordial Tradition which serves as an ideological substratum for all of the world’s Traditions to draw upon, in best thought of a repository of universal archetypes which are translated into the various Traditions of the world, each one being shaped by the geographic and cultural phenomena present in the respective Traditions. The language of Tradition is ethno-symbolist in origin; symbols and patterns of belief shape the cultures of the world around them. When minor discrepancies can be found in the archetypes (if examined in a cross-cultural comparison), they are easily explained as being a different translation of the same archetype or symbol, for it is imperative to remember that not all cultural groups in the world share the same set of psychological processes; each culture has been shaped by unique historical, geographical, natural and social forces. Thus the God of an indigenous shamanic population may appear radically different to the God of the Jews or Christians, though all are in fact speaking of the same entity. The foundational premise of the symbol is the same as that of an archetypal phenomena; however the translation itself is parsed through each environment differently.

If we are to accept spirituality as a self-generating phenomena set apart from the world of the mundane by its inherent qualities of the sacred and transcendent, how can we relate this process to the construction of a national identity? The answer to this question arises from an older theory which has fallen out of grace with contemporary political critique – primordialism. Not only is there a great similarity between the titles of the two theories, there is also a significant overlap between the two concepts, for both are self-generating and self-perpetuating without the need for any artificial intervention – in sum, both are organic, living forms of belief and awareness which are to be found in all peoples for they are universal values. Though at first the concept of an organic mode of national identity (and hence also an organic model for political identity) may appear like a radical transition, it is in fact not. The term primordialism (sometimes also known as perennialism) in political theory is the argument which contends that nations are ancient, natural phenomena, and thus shape themselves when constructing an identity. This stands in radical contrast to the inorganic modernist view of nationality, which is shaped and guided by external forces. Alan Bairner explains the distinction between primordialism and modernism (or instrumentalism) below:

It is relatively standard practice in sociological and political studies of nations and nationalisms to differentiate between primordialist (or ethno-symbolist) and modernist perspectives […] Central to the former is the belief that primordial attachments or relations are a matter of the significance attributed to criteria that are perceived to be objective language, ethnicity, geography, religion and which are almost certain to predate the emergence of the modern nation state and of nationalism as a modern political ideology. […] The modernist perspective, on the other hand, focuses on nations and nationalisms as modern inventions which emerge in response to new social and economic challenges.[1]

As the above extract hints, the key to understanding this dyad of political polarity, is that primordialism approaches the nation as a living, organic entity, formed from naturally occurring social bonds, whereas modernism adopts the approach that the nation is in fact an artificial construct. The first mentions of primordialism in this context arise from German Romanticism, and are found in the works of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and Johann Gottfried Herder. Herder’s theories revolved around the use of language in cultural groupings, and for Herder, the concept of the nation was synonymous with its linguistic group, which he also held to be a reflection of the group’s thoughts processes – thus each linguistic grouping would have not only different languages, but a different thought process. This is highly indicative of linguistic groupings being one of the primary sources from which national identities are formed.

Another important element which plays a key role in the assertion of national identities (under the broader context of primordialism) is the landscape itself. As Anthony D. Smith suggests territorial ‘homeland’ components of nations in primordialism indicate that ‘the landscapes of the nation define and characterise the identity of its people’.[2] Land and geographical features will always be a universal within any cultural grouping, for they generate images to which the populace at large can relate to.

Landscape is itself a representation, ‘a medium . . . embedded in a tradition of cultural signification and communication, a body of symbolic forms capable of being invoked and reshaped to express meaning and values’ (Mitchell 1994: 14). The interpretation of landscapes is hence a politically loaded activity: the meaning attributed to them results from an ideologically coded interpretation of society and nation (Nogue´ and Vicente 2004). Landscapes function in nation-building discourses as symbols of national authenticity. For this purpose, nature can be nationalised, but by associating nationhood with a landscape the nation can itself be naturalised (Kaufmann and Zimmer 1998; Smith 1986: 183–90).[3]

The notion of sacred land is also found in almost all indigenous cultures, particularly in locations where natural phenomenon were unusual; thus not only did land shape the evolution of society, it is also intrinsically wed to spirituality. These sites often become associated with myth, pilgrimage, and ritual. Furthermore, the appeal of the landscape in defining cultural identity is not limited to inhabitants of localised regions; it is also significantly embodied in constructing the identity of diasporic groups. In this respect, the fact that nations are defined territorially (although in relation to diasporic nationals they can also transcend spatial boundaries) is an important factor in their emotional appeal, especially when one considers the importance of the landscape for any territorial entity.[4] An obvious example of the use of the land as a construct of national identity amongst diasporic peoples would the implementation of modern Israel being established as the mythical homeland of the Jews.

It seems a matter of logic to assume that any group of people cohabiting a particular geographic region for a period of time would form the necessary social bonds which would act as a precursor to the formation of a rudimentary community, and that this community would in turn associate the land upon which they lived as part of their national identity. This however, is only a small portion of the factors which compose the totality of primordialism. Clifford Geertz elaborated further on primordialism, and is usually credited in literature as the author who introduced the concept of the primordial attachments and sentiments of an individual to the world.[5]

In Geertz’s theory the factors which constitute primordialism are in fact the assumed normative functions present in human social groupings. In Geertz’s theory one is bound to one’s kinsman, one’s neighbour, one’s fellow believer, ipso facto, as the result not only of personal affection, practical necessity, common interest, or obligation, but in great part by virtue of some absolute importance attributed to the very tie itself.[6] The nature of the attachments themselves are not constants, and vary between individuals and communities.

According to C. Geertz (1963), primordial attachments are also created at the social level when a community shares ideas of (also assumed) blood ties, the same race, speech, territory, religion, customs, and traditions. Many cultures regard primordial communities as universal and eternal. The lineage on both the mother’s and the father’s sides of the family, the history of the religious, ethnic group or nation can be traced back many centuries. History and ancestors are very important in the primordial community (Baèová, V., 1966). The primordial community as a historically developed givenness shows a tendency to dominate individuals. Membership of a primordial community is assigned to an individual and is considered to be hereditary (e.g. a caste but also a religion).[7]

Obviously this definition of primordialism encounters a problem in the modern era, in that immigration renders the above definition of primordialism both unfeasible and inappropriate. It is for this reason, that modernism/instrumentalism has gained prominence in academic circles, with primordialism being regarded as an out moded theory which is now only demonstrated amongst tribal communities. The crux of the argument in regards to the success of primordialism rests on the ethnicity of the actors involved; instrumentalism holds ethnicity as impermanent and an intangible aspect which can be changed. In instrumentalism, ethnic identity is not given to an individual in advance and forever, it is not primordial, but is constructed during one’s development and can undergo changes during one’s life.[8] By contrast, primordialism is defined below:

According to the primordial approach, ethnic identity is given to the individual just like the primordial membership of a community into which he/she was born (i.e. forever). As one cannot change the country, where one was born, or one’s native language, one cannot change one’s identity, which is deeply rooted in him or her. According to P.R. Brass (1991), it is common to all primordial views that ethnicity is based on descent.[9]

Therefore, the reason why primordialism is no longer deemed to a credible theory for national identity is not because it has inherently been proven wrong, but rather because it no longer suits the requirements of the modern state construct which is composed of people from a number of different ethnic backgrounds. The difference between primordialism and instrumentalism is further elaborated below.

The concern about multiculturalism has surfaced also in studies on nationalism which analyse the future of the nation. The two different positions that come here to the fore or ethno-symbolic and modernist can be best exemplified by the works of Anthony D. Smith and Mary Kaldor respectively. According to Smith (2002), while nationalism can certainly be regarded as a modern phenomenon, nations are not. In different forms (clans, tribes, city-states or ethnic communities), ‘nations’ have always existed (Smith, 2002, p. 14). National identities are somewhat perennial, pervasive, and ‘authentic’; while other types of identity gender, class, religion, etc. are situational, i.e. context-dependent (Smith, 2000, pp. 133134). As nations pre-date the rise of the modern state, it is possible that they will also survive its demise. The opposite view is held by modernists, who maintain that nations are not ‘primordial’, but ‘historical’ products, inextricably linked to the rise of the modern state. According to Kaldor (2004), it is therefore likely to expect that as nations came into existence, one day they will disappear.[10]

In the modern era, basing primordialism upon the ethnicity of the actors is not possible. In order to redefine primordialism, other aspects of organic communities must be examined to determine what the actual bonds of primordial attachments are in the modern era of mass relocation. Obviously, a number of factors occur in combination which ensure the normal social bonding processes take place within the community – language, culture, and group psychology will all occur within the formative process. All of this is quite reminiscent of Victor Turner’s theory of communitas. As one of the leading anthropologists, the idea of communitas put forward by Turner revolves around the interplay of spiritual Traditions to form bonds within social groupings – this intangible bond by which people identify their sense of ‘belonging’ is what Turner refers to as communitas. In terms of relevance in assisting us on our quest to redefine primordialism and national identity in terms which are relevant to the circumstances of the current nation/state, it is vital for us to understand what creates the sentiment of communitas which serves to form the primordial attachments and all national identities in terms of group psychology. This concept is what I refer to as the pathos, which is the impetus behind all arts, spiritual/philosophical beliefs and politics. I have chosen to implement the term pathos as being representative of an emotional state which is deliberately evoked as a response to a particular aesthetic. Thus, it is the unseen bond which binds the object of art to its observer though the will and intent of its creator. By using this, the artist attempts to evoke his emotional state in the observer by means of replication. Pathos is the emotional response of the observer to any particular art form, and any piece of successful art will cause pathos to manifest in the observer. Moreover, pathos is not limited entirely to art and it is capable of manifesting in other culture spheres, notably spirituality and politics. Art and spirituality are siblings which are primarily evoked to appeal to the subconscious. In spirituality the need for a successful pathos reaction is required in the participant, not the observer and is a core component of prayer and ritual. The ritual specialist also replaces the artist to elicit the pathos response from the audience. Obviously in spirituality the emotions evoked will be different to those which are often evoked by art, and tend to relate more to abstract mental states and the higher processes of cognition i.e. devotion, bliss, ecstasy, peacefulness. In politics the way in which pathos is evoked is again different, and it is best illustrated in the writings of Gustav Le Bon, whose works dwelt upon irrational impulses in the masses and generating emotional responses from the crowds. For Le Bon ‘crowds were characterised by illogical spirit, instinctive character, and a propensity to be governed by feelings.’[11] Le Bon advised the leader to know the “art of impressing the imagination of crowds,” because that knowledge would enable him to govern them.[12] Thus here the principle of raising a pathos response is the same in art, spirituality and politics, for all three rely on the ability of one person to create an emotional response in many individuals in order for their respective endeavours to be successful. It is undeniable that politics utilises the principle of pathos, and that in the writings of Le Bon on crowd psychology, politics became a mysterious new art form.

Le Bon encouraged leaders to play on the power of representation and to adopt theatrical modes. He equally directed attention to the use of words and language in combination with images. In the same way that representations, “if handled by art.” can turn magic, so words and formulas could become “supernatural powers”. No matter what their meaning, the power of words was relevant, Le Bon claimed. “Words whose sense is the most ill-defined are sometimes those that possess the most influence.” Words had a “truly magical power.” […] By emphasising magic in the leader’s relation to crowds, Le Bon instituted a doctrine of mystification. Since he believed he had scientifically proven the crowd’s irrational nature, Le Bon in effect advised the orators to appeal to their “sentiments, and never to their reason.” He suggested that in order to convince the crowd, it was necessary to know more than the feeling that animated it. One also needed to “pretend to share those sentiments” and possibly to divine from instant to instant the sentiments to which one’s discourse is giving birth.”[13]

There is very little room for doubt that Le Bon’s theory was directed as using politics as an art form, in which an active leader sought to evoke pathos reactions in a passive crowd, and we can see it enacted in Italian history by Mussolini, who was profoundly influenced by the works of Le Bon. Not only did Mussolini use the works of Le Bon to draw pathos reactions from the people of Italy, he saw politics as an art form, which links it strongly to the need to provoke emotional states in the otherwise passive observers, with the ‘performance’ serving as the medium by which to connect the ‘artist’ (in this example, Mussolini) with the observer (the Italian public). Mussolini describes politics as an art below:

That politics is an art there is no doubt. Certainly it is not a science, nor is it empiricism. It is thus art. Also because in politics there is a lot of intuition. “Political” like artistic creation is a slow elaboration and a sudden divination. At a certain moment the artist creates with inspiration, the politician with decision. Both work the material and the spirit…In order to give wise laws to a people it is also necessary to be something of an artist.[14]

As an art, politics is governed by the same rule as other arts; that it operates by generating an appeal to the irrational, emotive states. By means of generating pathos, the speaker or leader creates a bond betwixt themselves and the crowd. This was by no means limited to Mussolini and is a widely utilised political technique. A political scientist, Walter Connor, analysed the speeches of great leaders of nations, as well as national revivalists and noted a conspicuous uniformity of phraseology that was observable in a number of these speeches.

Phrases and pictures of family, blood, brothers, sisters, mothers, ancestors, home were almost universal. The speeches and phrases were able to mobilize masses and many individuals also believed them in private. W. Connor justifies the force of these appeals to primordial attachments by their emotional strength through which they have affected and continue to affect the human mind.[15]

Connor’s analysis paints a very clear picture of the political uses of not only primordial attachments, but also the effects of the successful raising of pathos in the respective audiences. Furthermore, the fact that these elements were also present in Mao’s speeches suggests that the use of emotive language was not limited to the Right Wing – indeed, as a universal element in the culture spheres, the use of pathos in politics is independent of all political parties and regimes for it is a technique or component and thus could be utilised by any and all political persuasions. A quick examination of speeches from the former American president George W. Bush reveals a highly targeted usage of key words and phrases such as ‘freedom’ and the ‘axis of evil’. Though Bush’s use of pathos in politics pales in comparison to others, attempts to raise pathos in his politic speeches are present, and this is demonstrated by excessive repetition of phrases and carefully selected words which were targeted to rouse the American public. Thus, appeals to the emotions in politics are not limited to the far right or nationalism; the power of words and pathos is merely a tool which could be utilised by any political current.

Pathos, when coupled with the primordial attachments, is a driving force in the construction of national identities both in the world of theory and the application of real politic. In a smaller community, these primordial attachments tend to be stronger, but theorists are still at a loss to explain how they translate into nationalism, where the attachments are weaker. I would tend to argue that this in itself is no great mystery; there is merely a need to generate more pathos to enhance the existing feelings of communitas to a point where primordial attachments manifest at a level wherein they are made to appear even in inorganic constructs such as the ‘nation’. Baèová cites this point, saying that ‘According to some authors, the success of nationalism can today be explained by the fact that it made an efficient use of the strength of human primordial attachments and extended them to a macrocommunity, i.e. to the nation state.’[16]In the context of social theory, these attachments can be rendered in a variety of different forms.

Social categorization theory and research have taught us that there is personality-based identity (‘personal’ identity), and categorical/inscriptive or ‘group’ identity. Likewise, there are two kinds of attraction (Hogg 1992) : personal attraction (caused by the personality of another), and social attraction (caused by the group-membership of another, through the prototyped stereotype attached to such membership). However, this theory takes the (contextless) process of categorization itself to be decisive (Turner et al. 1987) , and proposes no theory about the different kinds of ‘groups’ with which people can identify. There are many kinds of group identities: ethnic, kinship, political, religious, gender, class, racial, regional. Each creates an in-group (where ego is member) and an out-group, and therefore a social boundary, by stipulating certain conditions that members must satisfy in order to be such. But psychologists have in general treated all group identities and in-group/out-group cleavages as resulting from the same, general, stereotype-formation process (for example, Bar-Tal et al. 1989; Leyens/Yzerbyt/Schadron 1994). However, we are probably equipped with specialized psychologies (plural) to process the different kinds of social boundaries that recur in the social world. Group identities are probably ‘domain-specific’, like most other aspects of human cognition (Symons, 1992; Tooby & Cosmides 1992). If so, membership conditions in one domain (political groups) may well be different from those in another (ethnic groups).[17]

The interesting implication which arises here, is that in such a community where pathos is strong enough to forge primordial attachments and enhance the feeling of communitas, is that it would create a friendlier, more caring community – this would stand in a marked contrast to the isolation of a community of ‘individuals’, which is today the hallmark of the majority of nations today. In discussing primordialism and pathos in nationalism, Heam argues that ‘to understand better the importance of human sentiments in the formation of nationalism, what is needed is detailed case and comparative studies that look at the actual interface of primordial discourses of kinship, territory and language, and primary groups in specific social structures, and the workings of national discourses in those contexts, whether playing upon primordialist themes or not’.[18]

Steve Bruce argues that religion is greatly underestimated as a force in contemporary Western society both in terms of literal belief and in terms of symbolic and metaphorical meaning.[19] Furthermore, as structural-functionalism has declined in the social sciences as a theoretical tool of analysis, so too have the functional aspects and relevance of religion been overlooked.[20] Certainly, due to the current climate religion is more misunderstood in the Occident than it was two hundred years ago – with every step taken towards scientific progress, research in the humanities has taken about twenty steps backward. We must not ignore the impact of different spiritual Traditions on national identity either, whether they have had positive or adverse effects, for spirituality, has, and continues to be, a driving force in human culture. As Durkheim concluded, ‘If religion has given birth to all that is essential in society, it is because the idea of society is the soul of religion’.[21] Thus in the eyes of Durkheim, society and religion are linked in a fundamental manner. Indeed, a cursory glance at the etymological origins of both religion and society reveals just how deep the connection betwixt the two is. The word ‘religion’ comes from the Latin religio, meaning bonds of social relations; ‘society’ comes from the Latin socio, meaning bonds of compassion and community.[22]The true role of spirituality is thus one of social relationships, which serve to define a network or community; a definition which would exclude all forms of political religion which define an individual’s role in relationship to the state instead.

Religion thus implies the idea of networks and relations superior to the individual that perform life-enhancing, even life-creating functions that create a sense of community and compassion because its members share relationships, thus was Durkheim able to identify God and religion as society. The relationships one enters into also help form one’s consciousness and culture and thus one’s identity, sense of place and belonging. Relationships convey knowledge and information, ways of interpreting the world and understanding one’s place in it – skills vital to maintaining one’s life in terms of social interaction, economic cooperation, material survival and physical (military) preservation.[23]

Therefore, if used correctly, spirituality should serve to bring a community together – only when spirituality falls into the hands of politics does it become misused for other agendas. Here, on a side note, I would also advocate, in light of the fact that spirituality has replaced religion as the common term for metaphysical beliefs, that both be substituted by the word Tradition when we speak of belief systems that are rooted in cultural and/or ancestral heritage. Having seen how Tradition can be warped by political agendas, it behoves us to explain what the appropriate role of Tradition should be in national identities. Otto says that “if there be any single domain of human experience that presents us with something unmistakably specific and unique peculiar to itself assuredly that is it is that of the religious life.” The individual nature of Tradition ties an individual to culture and community more strongly than ties of ethnicity and in terms of asserting or prescribing national identities it is more effective, particularly in the modern era where cultural groups are composed of mixed ethnicities. Moreover, the acceptance of the same Tradition equates to a similar cultural and ethical viewpoint which creates a more harmonious society, whereas geographical or ethnic primordial attachments create weaker bonds and the principle of communitas is lessened. Thus, I would argue that the principle primordial attachment in the theory of primordialism, is not ethnicity but Tradition. It has previously been asserted by Brass that ethnicity is the prime condition for primordialism, as it cited here.

According to P.R. Brass, it is common to all primordial views that ethnicity is based on descent. The primordial understanding of one’s ethnic membership explains the non-rational behaviour of people, which is against their other (even existential) interests when defending their ethnicity, their willingness to suffer persecution or to die for their nation.[24]

Whilst this may explain the rise of nations in the pre-colonial world, this view is longer feasible for primordialism as it is not sufficient to explain the mixed cultural groupings of the modern era. Not only are there now large communities of mixed ethnicity, there are also the newly emerging micro-communities to consider, which although currently limited to social networking, do exhibit the same patterns as newly emerging nations, in the regard that the social bonds are naturally arising from primordial attachments, usually cultural or lifestyle based. In the current era, any political theory or ideology which holds ethnicity to be the main primordial attachment is ultimately doomed to failure. The previous definition of primordialism is no longer appropriate as it does not allow variance in geography and ties ethnic groups to territorial locations. Thus, the theory needs to be revised to accurately reflect national identity in the modern era. In its current format it also fails to explain newly emergent forms of supra-nationalism such as the EU which will be addressed later in this article. A more feasible stance is advocated by Ernest Gellner.

According to him, nationalism means a transfer of the focus of People’s identity into a culture that is disseminated through literacy and the formal system of education. It is not the mother tongue (i.e. primordial attachment) that is important any more, but the language of alma mater (as an instrumental means of communication). This is a consequence, in Gellner’s opinion, of industrialization and the demands for a standardized system of education, which brought the community (polity) and culture closer together. In these psychological terms nationalism extended the cultural and civilization repertoire of the sources of an individual’s identity. However, nationalism assumes and relies on the efficiency of primordial sentiments.[25]

Thus the culmination of national identity, fostered by the primordial attachments, passes through the contemporary education system, and it is this way that all current modes of national identity are disseminated. Language is also reinforced as a prime focus for creating primordial bonds, and is perhaps the most important element in constructing national identity, for without a common linguistic group, there can be no opportunities for bonding within the community. Translated into education via the medium of language, the culture and community prescribe the value of the nation to an individual.[26]

To integrate into a modern society (nation) everyone needs to share a single underlying culture. To integrate into a pre-modern society (ethnic group) one needs to acquire its very specific culture. The difference is that a modern culture has a universality to it that encourages differences, but only if they can effectively exchange and form relations of reciprocity, which requires uniformity and a single truth or system for defining truth. A pre-modern culture requires quite overt conformity to local conditions and so is non-universal, it is in fact very conformist, although the wide variety of different local styles of conformity seems to indicate a greater variety and non-conformity.[27]

So, then in the context of modernity, and accepting the given that this can no longer be based on ethnic descent, how can cultural and national identity be constructed in the modern era? With Brenner we see a new definition emerging providing arguments on both a supra and sub-national basis. Thus the traditional model of the nation-state can be unified at the macro-level and divided at the micro level, making the model not only top-heavy but providing weak foundations on which to build any bonds of communitas. However, the inverse model can also be constructed, with smaller micro-communities at the bottom, which serve to de-stabilise the top strata of the supra-national level by threatening to split the structure from the base, if we think of the macro/micro community to be pyramid shaped in structure. Thus, by disrupting the bottom of the pyramid it is possible to topple the larger macro-nation community structures by dividing communities at the micro level. Whilst the topic has been analysed numerous times, and the process itself has been widely acknowledged, little has been said of how this affects the nation, national identity, and how to rectify the situation, as Antonisch cites below:

All the above-mentioned studies affirm, more or less explicitly, that in the present epoch the nation-state, if not in crisis, is at least experiencing a transformation. Many of these studies, however, limit the analysis of this transformation to only one of the two dimensions of the ‘nation-state’. The focus is almost exclusively on the transformation of the structure and powers of the state. How this transformation affects the nation is somewhat passed under silence.[28]

In regards to supra-national constructs, many have predicted a decline in national identity, which would have an obvious and expected conclusion, given that merging small cultural systems into a larger one should consume the smaller, or least cause it diminish in size and strength. Curiously however, evidence actually points in the opposite direction. National pride has actually increased within the EU, with the exception of Northern Ireland. Whilst other factors could easily have been the cause of this, as opposed to it merely being the result of policy implementation at the supra-national level, the fact remains that it has increased. Whilst supra-nationalism obviously delivers nationalist identity in a few form which has not been utilised before, it is still a nationalist construct – one which remains unscathed by the negative imagery affiliated with nationalism in the post WWII era. Thus, unrecognisable to most as a supra-nationalist construct, it does not trigger the usual ‘knee-jerk’ reaction the public experiences in the presence of nationalist rhetoric. This means the impact of supra-nationalism, contrary to being an impediment to the cultural identity of member states, is actually creating nationalist sentiments, which even if they are not enough to provide a true sense of communitas betwixt inhabitants, is nonetheless generating nationalism, albeit from a macro level. The results of the surveys conducted by Eurobarometer are listed below.

Eurobarometer – The survey question about national pride (‘Would you say that you are very proud, quite proud, not very proud, or not at all proud to be [nationality]?’) was first asked in 1982, but unfortunately it was not included every year in Eurobarometer standard surveys, with a significant gap between 1989 and 1993. Looking at data at the European level, we notice that overall from 1982 to 2005, national identities among the EU-15 countries have not declined. On the contrary, at the European level, national identity has increased by ten percentage points. The countries which mainly account for this increase are Belgium, East Germany, and Italy. Northern Ireland is the only territory which has experienced a major downturn.[29]

This may in fact be an example of Manuel Castells study on identities in the age of the network society. According to Castells, religious fundamentalisms, ethno-nationalisms, regionalist movements, and local communes are today the new identity expressions of the ‘space of places’ which complement the de-territorialised, globalized identity of a technocratic-financial-managerial elite who lives in the ‘space of flows’.[30] Thus, it would be nationalism, but of the kind which is not confined to the ‘space of places’ but rather an example of the new modernist identities created by the ‘space of flows’. In regards to modernist constructs, we are dealing with a new form of nationalism which is not tied to any given community, nor is based on the organic model of Tradition.

In conclusion, the current modern shift towards a social structure based on modernism/instrumentalism, whilst obviously intended to construct cultural and/or national identity in the modern area, is likely to prove a top-heavy and unwieldy model which fails to provide a fundamental solid building base for the creation of communitas. The bonds it seeks to establish between citizens are insubstantial compared to the genuine ties generated by communitas and primordial attachments, both of which rely on the generation of pathos in order to create these bonds. Pathos can be raised through the arts, spirituality, or even charisma itself – the crucial element for success is not the mode, but the reaction itself, which serves to act as a catalyst for forging the primordial attachments that are required to cultivate a healthy society. The failure to generate this essential component makes modernism/instrumentalism incapable of rendering the appropriate amount of pathos required to create an emotional attachment or primordial bond to the inorganic nation/state impossible, which as a consequence also renders the failure of any movement based on national identity. With the inadequacy of modernism/instrumentalism and its failure to deliver any meaningful cultural significance, we are left with its opposite pole in the dyad, primordialism. As an old theory however, primordialism also is lacking in the modern era, due to the impetus it used to place on ethnicity as the defining point of identity – a solution which is at best tenuous in modern society. It is therefore imperative to revise the definition of primordialism so that it no longer bases its philosophy on the ethnicity of actors within the nation. The defining point of cultural identity needs to less rigid than that of fixed biology, and based on common viewpoints – for example a community whom shares the same philosophy is likely to be much more harmonious than one whose identity is based purely on physical characteristics. I therefore propose that the term primordialism be redefined to place greater emphasis of Tradition, spirit and culture – all the integral building blocks of society which render organic and naturally arising communities possible. It is only by creating a new cultural paradigm that is relevant to the modern era that any true spiritual or political reformation can begin.

[1] Bairner, A., National Sports and National Landscapes: In defence of Primordialism, in National Identities, Vol. 11, No. 3, (UK: Loughborough University, 2009), 223.[2] Ibid., 224.[3]Huysseune, M., Landscapes as a Symbol of Nationhood: the Alps in the Rhetoric of the Lega Nord in Nations and Nationalism, Issue 16 Vol.2, 2010, 355.[4] Bairner, A., National Sports and National Landscapes: In Defence of Primordialism, in National Identities, 225.[5] Baèová, V., The Construction of National Identity – on Primordialism and Instrumentalism, in Human Affairs, Issue 8 (Institute of Social Sciences, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 1998), 4.[6] Ibid., 31.[7] Ibid., 32.[8] Ibid., 36.[9] Ibid., 36.[10]Antonsicha, M., National Identities in the Age of Globalisation: The Case of Western Europe, in National Identities, Vol. 11, No. 3 (UK: University of Birmingham, 2009), 28.[11] Falasca-Zamponi, S., Fascist Spectacle: The Aesthetics of Power in Mussolini’s Italy (USA: University of California Press, 1997), 18.[12]Ibid., 20.[13] Ibid., 20.[14] Ibid., 15.[15]Baèová, V., The Construction of National Identity – on Primordialism and Instrumentalism, in Human Affairs, 41.[16] Ibid., 38.[17] Gill-White, F. J., How Thick is Blood? The Plot Thickens…if Ethnic Actors are Primordialists, what Remains of the Circumstantialist/Primordialist Controversy in Ethnic and Racial Studies, Volume 22 Number 5 (USA: Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1999), 800.[18] Bairner, A., National Sports and National Landscapes: In Defence of Primordialism, in National Identities, 225.[19] Dingleya, J., Religion, Truth, National Identity and Social Meaning: The Example of Northern Ireland, in National Identities Vol. 11, No. 4, December 2009, 367.[20] Ibid. 368.[21] Gates, D.K. & Steane, P., Political Religion – the Influence of Ideological and Identity Orientation in Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, Vol. 10, Nos. 3–4, Taylor & Francis 2009, 305.[22] James Dingleya, Religion, Truth, National Identity and Social Meaning: The Example of Northern Ireland, in National Identities, 369.[23] Ibid., 369.[24] Baèová, V., The Construction of National Identity – on Primordialism and Instrumentalism, in Human Affairs, 38.[25] Ibid., 38-39.[26] Ibid., 39.[27]Dingleya, J., Religion, Truth, National Identity and Social Meaning: The Example of Northern Ireland, in National Identities, 380.[28]Antonsicha, M., National Identities in the Age of Globalisation: The Case of Western Europe in National Identities, Vol. 11, No. 3, UK, 2009, 282.[29] Ibid., 285.[30] Ibid., 283.

mardi, 06 septembre 2016

An Alternative History of Scottish Nationalism

Ex: http://empire-and-revolution.blogspot.com

The remarkable rise of the Scottish National Party (SNP), which is now a liberal-left party led largely by 1968 leftists, masks the ethno-nationalist roots of the party and the broader ethno-nationalist undercurrent of the Scottish Nationalist movement as a whole. In this article, we intend to explore some of the personalties that made up this early movement, their activities and detail some of their ideas that influenced the early SNP and which would make the likes of Alex Salmond, the current leader of the SNP, cringe in embarrassment, even though they make up a substantial section of the SNP's early history and political direction.

Lewis Spence and the Mysteries of Britain

The first Scottish nationalist to contest a Westminster parliamentary seat in Scotland was the journalist, poet and folklorist Lewis Spence in January 1929. He polled 842 votes (a worthy 4.5% of the vote) in the Midlothian and Peebles Northern constituency which was won by Labour in a three-cornered fight with Spence and the Conservatives. Spence's Scottish National Movement had combined in 1928 with other Scottish Home Rule organisations, including the Gaelic revivalist Ruariridh Erskine's Scots National League, to form the National Party of Scotland (NPS). Later in 1934, the NPS amalgamated with the more conservative Scottish Party to form the modern-day Scottish National Party which exists today under the capable leadership of Alex Salmond.

An idea of what animated Lewis Spence's political thought can be extracted from his 1905 book The Mysteries of Britain: Secret Rites and Traditions of Ancient Britain (reprinted in 1994 by Senate). The book is dripping with erudition and politically incorrect racial and ethnic analysis relating to the origins of the pre-Christian native religion of the ancient British Isles and the indigenous people of those islands who practised it. Spence concludes: "In no individual born in these islands does there not flow the blood of the Druid priests and seers, and I confidently rely on British mystics, whatever their particular predilections, to unite in this greatest of all possible quests, the restoration of our native Secret Tradition," arguing that "we Britons are much too prone to look for excellence outside of the boundaries of our own island" and "that we should so weakly rely on alien systems of thought while it is possible for us to re-establish our own is surely miserable."

He called for the "restoration of the entire fabric of British native mysticism" concluding "the missing stones of that fabric lie directly beneath our feet in the soil of our own island, and it depends entirely upon our patriotism and our vigilance whether they shall be recovered and once more fill the gaps and seams in the ancient edifice of British arcane wisdom."

Wendy Wood

In contrast to the electoral approach of the NPS/SNP, which had mixed results, a group of militant ethno-nationalists led by the English-born Wendy Wood, a founder member of the NPS, via Lewis Spence's Scottish National Movement, decided that a non-party approach would be more effective and left the infant SNP to engage in more direct militant action. This involved rowdy protests and demonstrations against all forms of Unionism as well as speaking and propaganda tours across Scotland advocating a Scottish cultural revival and political independence. In the 1930s, she founded the youth group, Scottish Watch, which later became, in 1949, the Scottish Patriots, which existed until her death in 1981 boasting a few thousand members to rival the SNP in popularity amongst Scottish ethno-nationalists.

Wood is also cited in the Preface to Spence's Mysteries of Britain book where he states: "I cannot close without expressing my sincere thanks to Miss Wendy Wood for the eight excellent drawings which she has made for this book. Deeply imbued with the Keltic spirit and versed in the details of Keltic antiquity, she has infused them with the richness of Keltic imagination and mysticism."

Scottish cultural and social nationalism

The leader of the Scots National League, Ruairidh Erskine, despite his aristocratic lineage, had close links to important Scottish socialist figures, such as John Maclean, the influential Scottish Marxist and a left-wing nationalist. However, despite his support for land reform and other socialist measures, Erskine was regarded as a reactionary figure by many on the burgeoning socialist left in Scotland because of his deep commitment and support for a Scottish Gaelic cultural revival, including everyday use and development of the language. Erskine was also close friends with another Gaelic revivalist, the journalist, William Gillies, another nationalist with close links to the socialist left, but who, like Erskine, was more interested in the revival of the Gaelic language and who campaigned to make Gaelic the national language of Scotland in order to counteract the increasing hegemony of the English language and English-speakers amongst the Scottish people, particularly the working classes in Scotland's towns and cities.

Gillies also advocated close links to Irish nationalists and was involved in the establishment of a volunteer force called Fianna na h-Alba that was ready to use armed force to win Scottish independence. However, following advice by the legendary Irish nationalist leader, Michael Collins, the plan was abandoned after he argued in a letter that the militant Scottish nationalists "do not appreciate the particular difficulties they are up against," particularly with regards the lack of significant public support in Scotland for such action and the relative strength of the British state north of the border compared to the situation in Ireland.

Scottish Fascism

Another significant pre-war figure in politically incorrect Scottish nationalism was the celebrated Scottish poet, Hugh MacDiarmid (born Christopher Murray Grieve) a founder member of the National Party of Scotland, who in 1923, a year after Mussolini's rise to power in Italy, wrote two articles calling for a Scottish Fascism which would engineer as part of its programme a Scottish national revival and radical social justice across the country. MacDiarmid also set up a Scottish Fascist combat organisation called Clann Albainn which existed as an underground movement for many years, even after its founder finally embraced communism. Later, he would be expelled from the SNP because of his communist views. Upon joining the Communist Party, MacDiarmid, rather ironically, would eventually be expelled for his nationalist views!

Like many European nationalists, including the Flemish, Breton and Ukrainian nationalists, along with nationalists closer to home in Wales and Ireland, MacDiarmid saw opportunities for Scottish nationalism in the advance of Nazi Germany and the possible unravelling of the British state following a German invasion of England.

In 1941, he wrote to a friend: "On balance I regard the Axis powers, tho' more violently evil for the time being, less dangerous than our own government in the long run and indistinguishable in purpose." A year earlier he had written: "If the Germans win they could not hold their gains for long, but if the French and British win it will be infinitely more difficult to get rid of them" and, as a result, he hoped for a quick Nazi victory in order to advance the Scottish nationalist cause.

Towards the end of his life, MacDiarmid became the President of the 1320 Club (the year of the Declaration of Abroath which reaffirmed Scotland's determination to remain independent of England at the time) which was the ultra-nationalist forerunner to the ethno-nationalist Siol nan Gaidheal 'ginger group' which rose to prominance in the seventies and eighties.

"Scotland's Quisling"

Arthur Donaldson

Arthur Donaldson, a future leader of the SNP between 1960 and 1969, just like MacDiarmid, hoped that an early Nazi victory over the British government would advance the Scottish nationalist cause. Along with a number of other leading Scottish nationalists, he was arrested in May 1941 because of his support of the Scottish Neutrality League and the suspicions of MI5 that some Scottish nationalists intended to set up a breakaway Scottish government in the event of a Nazi invasion of Britain and that Donaldson, according to MI5, was a potential leadar of this government and "Scotland's Quisling" in the making! Donaldson and his compatriots were arrested and held without charge under Defence Regulation 18B by the British state. He was held for six weeks, but was eventually released as the British authorities decided not to reveal the identity of the MI5 agent who had infiltrated them.

The report by the MI5 agent that prompted their arrest was later released after Donaldson's death and it included a conversation with Donaldson which prompted MI5's belief that he was a National Socialist sympathiser and a potential pro-German collaborator.

The report read:

"During a long conversation, Donaldson gave great praise to Germany saying that England would be completely crushed by the early Spring; the Government would leave the country and that England's position would be absolutely hopeless, as poverty and famine would be their only reward for declaring war on Germany. Scotland on the other hand had great possibilities. We must, he declared, be able to show the German Government that we are organised and that we have a clear cut policy for the betterment of Scotland; that we have tried our best to persuade the English Government that we want Scottish independence and that we are not in with them in this war. If we can do that you can be sure that Germany will give us every possible assistance in our early struggle. The time is not yet ripe for us to start a visible campaign against England, but when fire and confusion is at its height in England, we can start in earnest. He then went on to tell them he had an idea in his mind for fixing up a wireless transmitting set in a thickly populated district in Glasgow or Edinburgh, in order to give broadcasts to the public. At the moment he is working very hard in an endeavour to combine all the Nationalists together as a unit, whereby they can strike out with great force when the time comes."

After the war, during his leadership of the SNP, the party began to organise more professionally under his guidance and poll more credibly at elections which, as a result, culminated in the famous Hamilton by-election victory for the SNP in 1967. However, in 1969, Donaldson was replaced as leader of the party after a leadership challenge by the social democrat, Billy Wolfe, who helped pave the way for Alex Salmond's ascendancy in the party today.

Seed of the Gaels

Post-war, the flame of Scottish ethnic nationalism was mainly kept alive by Siol nan Gaidheal (SnG), which means in Scottish Gaelic - the Offspring or Seed of the Gaels!

Siol nan Gaidheal - kicked out of the SNP at the same time as Alex Salmond.

This Scottish ethno-nationalist group was established in 1978 and paraded in blackshirts and kilts at Scottish Nationalist demonstrations and protests organised by the SNP and other groups. In 1982, SnG was proscribed from the SNP, along with the socialist 79 Group, which included Alex Salmond in its ranks though his expulsion was later overturned by the leadership. SnG went into a rapid decline after that setback but has subsequently been revived a number of times, most notably by Jackie Stokes, a militant ultra-nationalist, in the late eighties.

In the 1980s, SnG produced a magazine called Firinn Albannach (Truth of Scotland) which was described as being "anti-communist, neo-fascist and sometimes violent in tone" in a survey of British and Irish political groups conducted by liberal academics from Manchester University.

Free Scotland

The Free Scotland Party, led by Brian Nugent, broke away from the SNP in 2004 over disagreements about the European Union (EU) and Scotland's future membership once independent. The party stood for an independent Scotland, independent of both the British state and the EU superstate, with Norway, an independent non-EU country, identified as a model for a future independent Scotland. The party contested a number of elections in 2005 and 2007 with Jim Fairlie, a former Deputy Leader of the SNP, standing as one of the candidates, but none were successful.

A Scottish Future for Scottish Nationalists

Despite the current stranglehold on the party by 1968 leftists, the SNP is steeped in an ethno-nationalist tradition with roots that go back to its very origins and formation before the Second World War. Genuine Scottish nationalists now need to consider their position in Scottish politics. They must, in our opinion, unite and rally around a Scottish First-type organisation that can provide direction and meaning following independence which now seems highly possible, even if the NO campaign is temporarily able to halt the trend towards independence. It is obvious that the Tory/UKIP/BNP unionist position, bolstered by the religious sectarian cranks of the Orange Order, is no longer an option for serious ethno-nationalist activists and campaigners. The same logic also applies to the Scottish sovereignists of Free Scotland who should also be approached for their views on a possible realignment and amalgamation. In the meantime, we wish Scotland and its people well in their journey towards self-determination and freedom.

lundi, 21 mars 2016

A Brief Case for Universal Nationalism

By Guillaume DurocherEx: http://www.counter-currents.com

I would like to briefly make the case for universal nationalism, a political ideology defined here as the belief that every nation should have a society and a state of its own. Put more simply still: Every people should have its own country; every people should rule itself, rather than be dictated by outsiders. I believe universal nationalism encapsulates many of the principles which would allow all human beings to live in a more peaceful, prosperous, and progressive world.

I base this upon two premises:

The desirability of the nation-state, that is to say of homogeneity and a common ethnic identity within societies.

The desirability of human (bio)diversity, that is to say of ethnic, cultural, political, economic, and other differences between societies.

Perhaps the most fundamental fact supporting the idea of universal nationalism is the reality of ethnocentrism. Human beings are inherently tribal and, with good reason, have evolved over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years to be so. In the modern era, with its mass communications and mass politics, this tribalism becomes fixated on the ethnic group. Whereas individuals in a society should all identify with each other as much as possible, as this is a prerequisite for the solidarity on which the public good always rests, we tend to find that identification fractures along ethnic lines.

This leads to a negative reason for universal nationalism: The multiculturalists’ persistent failure to create a truly cohesive and harmonious multiethnic society. It matters not whether the ethnic differences are based on language (Belgium, Canada), religion (Iraq, Syria), or race (the United States, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa . . .).[1] In each case, the lack of a common identity leads to a perpetual tribalization of politics. These problems are sometimes peaceful managed, but they quite often lead to horrific and otherwise unnecessary ethnic civil wars. In any case, the problems are intractable. People on average are simply not as willing to submit to authority, pay taxes, or give their life in war for another group, as they would for their own group. In a word: There is no solidarity.

This lack of solidarity tends to be worsened by the fact that ethnic groups tend to have different levels of educational and socio-economic performance. Ethnic pride is one of the most powerful emotions in the world, and the sight of another ethnic group doing better than one’s own inevitably leads to enormous amounts of ill-feeling. The less well-performing group will be underrepresented in the countries’ influential institutions and circles (e.g. politics, media, academia, law, corporations, the oligarchy . . .) and will tend to accuse of the better-performing group of ethnic nepotism or of biasing its use of power in its own interests, i.e. “racism.” Conversely, a better-performing ethnic group tends to resent the less well-performing ones for being a relative drag on society, committing more crimes and requiring more policing, dragging down school performance, providing less in taxes, and generally requiring more resources from the public purse in the form of welfare. These dynamics largely account for the endless conflicts and tensions between Jews, East Asians (e.g. Overseas Chinese), white gentiles, browns, and blacks whenever these groups inhabit the same countries.

Different ethnic groups also tend to have different preferences. Living in the same society and under the same government, each is not free to pursue them, but must accommodate ill-fitting common decisions, either decided unilaterally by one group or through awkward inter-ethnic compromises.

The result of all this is that multiethnic societies are, invariably, unions of resentment and mutual recriminations. Multiethnic societies are sometimes inevitable and must be peacefully be managed, but one should not pretend that these are either optimal or desirable.

Mirroring the intractable problems of the multiethnic society, there are positive reasons for universal nationalism. In short, in the nation-state man’s tribal instinct no longer tears the society apart, but brings it together. Instead of ethnic fragmentation and conflict, ethnocentrism in the nation-state turns the entire society into one extended family. This tends to both be emotionally compelling – hence the power of political nationalism throughout the modern era[2] – and to enable societies in which individuals are more willing to sacrifice for the public good, whether in the form of respecting public authority and the law, paying taxes, or defending against foreign aggression. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the powerful “cuddle hormone” oxytocin tends to promote both altruism (self-sacrifice) and ethnocentrism (in-group identity and preference), which makes perfect evolutionary sense.[3]

The nation-state, like a family, is both a preexisting biological and cultural reality, and a project to be carefully cultivated over the generations. In the ideal nation-state, common national identification is developed through the elimination of sub-national particularisms, either by assimilation to a common ethnic group or by minorities’ gaining independence in their own nation-states.

In the modern era, the European nation-state was found to be such a powerful form of socio-political organization that it was emulated throughout the world. Belief in the desirability of the nation-state was sharply weakened by the excesses of the world wars. But the nation-state is only a tool, a powerful but double-edged sword, and cannot be blamed for being misused. In any event, a nation-state bien compris would recognize kinship with closely-related nations and logically organize to defend common interests. Even after the Second World War, the liberal-conservative Jewish intellectual Raymond Aron, for one, continued to consider the nation-state to be “the political masterpiece.” Few would argue that Europeans’ relative abandonment of the nation-state – such as the creation of African and Islamic ghettos in the cities or the building of a flawed currency union – have improved their well-being or influence in the world.

Finally, the domestic homogeneity of the nation-state is desirable because it is the only way of guaranteeing humanity’s international diversity. Human beings, contra an evil Judeo-Christian doctrine, are not separate from the animal kingdom and the rest of Nature, but an integral part of it. Humanity, like any species, is subject to the same Darwinian rules of natural selection and struggle. It may survive and prosper and achieve higher forms of consciousness, or it may go extinct. Perhaps the best guarantee to ensure humanity’s maximal survivability is diversity, true diversity. True human diversity would be biological, cultural, political, economic, and otherwise.

The globalists argue that all political regimes, across the world, that are different from their own “liberal-democratic” ideals should be destroyed and that all countries should be integrated into a single hyper-consumerist global capitalist economic system. Thus, the Earth is being consumed to fill our bellies, but she cannot sustain all Third World countries achieving Western standards of living, the rainforests being destroyed and hundreds of millions of years of accumulated fossil-fuels being consumed for our vulgar pleasures.

The globalists also argue that – at least concerning Western countries – that ethnic homogeneity should be destroyed, that America should be “globalized” into a raza cósmica and that Europe should be Afro-Islamized. They call this “diversity.” But the equation of ethnic heterogeneity with “diversity” is very misleading insofar as, actually – notwithstanding their genetic or linguistic differences, or an intractable tendency towards self-segregation and the formation of subcultures – different ethnic gorups in a given society must anyway must submit to a common political and ideological model to live together. Is the elimination of European ethnicities and identity, and the subjugation of the entire world to a single “liberal-democratic” ideology and capitalist economic system, really “diverse”?

I posit the contrary: Subjugating all of humanity to a single economic and ideological model means putting all our eggs in one basket. If it is seriously flawed, as it surely is or will occasionally be, that means we would all suffer from its failures and risk extinction.

Instead, humanity really should be biologically, culturally, politically, and economically diverse. Thus, with every new era, each society will evolve and react somewhat differently. While one may stagnate or even collapse, others may survive and prosper. The innovations of one part of humanity – the Japanese, say – can be adopted and adapted to other parts. Would the elimination of Japan’s uniqueness through Africanization or Islamization really benefit the rest of humanity, or even Africa and the Islamic World? Most would think not. And the same is true of Europe and Europeans. We can ask simply: Would, as is currently proposed, the decline and steady disappearance ethnic Europeans really benefit the Third World? Given the lack of innovation of Latin America, Africa, and the Islamic World, this seems hard to believe. And certainly, few would argue that Haiti or Zimbabwe have benefited much from white extinction in those countries.

I believe Europeans, like any group, should take their own side. But many of our people, partly due to their in-born generosity and partly due to a misleading education, are insensitive to arguments of self-interest. For them the good must be couched exclusively in universal terms. These people are disturbed by the growing inequality and social fragmentation evident throughout the Western world yet are powerless to understand why this happening or articulate a valid response. For them, I answer: Nationhood is a supreme moral good necessary to a solidary and harmonious society, and therefore all nations, particularly our dear European nations, should be preserved and cultivated.

Notes

1. The nearest thing I have found to an exception to this rule is Swizterland, a very successful country in which the diversity between Protestants and Catholics, and between German-, French-, Italian-, and Romansh-speakers appears to pose few problems. Scholars have proposed that one reason Switzerland is so peaceful is because these groups, while united in a fairly weak federal state (with central government spending of just 10% of GDP), are sharply separated in their own largely self-ruling cantons. One should also not neglect that Switzerland’s ethnic diversity has in fact led to tensions and conflict throughout its history and required very peculiar, in some respects stifling and fragile, political structures. Véronique Greenwood, “Scientists Who Model Ethnic Violence Find that in Switzerland, Separate is Key to Peace,” Discover blog, October 12, 2011. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2011/10/12/scie...[2]

2. Indeed, nationalism is probably the single-most-powerful and most-exploited political sentiment in modern history, including by political movements who might be theoretically opposed to it. For instance, the twentieth-century revolutionary Chinese and Vietnamese communist movements and the various “anti-racist” anti-colonial movements, were quite obviously motivated and empowered by ethnocentric sentiment against overbearing foreign powers.

jeudi, 18 décembre 2014

Ukrainian Nationalism, Socialism, & the Resistance to Imperialism in the 20th Century: From Franko to Stoyan

By Matthew Raphael Johnson

Ex: http://www.counter-currents.com

Introduction

In no way can a brief article do any justice to a complex idea like the Ukrainian nation. While this author has dedicated his academic life to these and related topics, its poor treatment in the press and distortion by certain emigre circles calls for a certain clarification. One that will not doubt please no one. However, this article purports to be nothing but a scattered set of ideas on a colossal topic penetrated by only a few.

National movements develop a scheme of history. Historical schools in the last two centuries have differed on what form of organization is the prime mover in history: national, urban, or civilizational, or economic. National histories have chosen among them to construct the best narrative. Of course, all histories do this, as the pure “abstract theorist” of fantasy does not exist anywhere.

The specific Ukrainian idea historically is worthwhile. It begins at Kievan Rus (really before that, with a Slavic civilization going far back in time) and does not veer off into Suzdal or Moscow. Rather, the powerful, but short-lived, state of Galicia was far superior as an example. Perfectly situated on Central European trading routes and blessed with endless salt marshes, the constant and usually violent confrontations between noble and crown led to a fairly balanced system. Two monarchs in particular, Roman and Daniel, ruing during the high middle ages, brought Galicia to the height of its power.

Suzdal was seen as a foreign state of Finns and northern tribes including Lapps and Permians which sacked Kiev under the prince of Vladimir, Andrei, in 1169. Andrei, nicknamed “Bogolyubsky,” was half Cuman[1] though his mother. Instead, the Ukrainian idea is slowly absorbed into Lithuania, which had called itself the gatherer of Rus’ before Moscow did. Tver had called itself the Third Rome before Moscow, and some have argued that Novgorod, Suzdal and even Ohrida claimed that title.

From the fall of the Galician state under the Mongols to the concomitant growth of Rus-Lithuania, gradual Polonization led to the creation of the Uniat, or “Greek Catholic” church, a symbol of colonial rule that attracted the ire of the Cossacks. The Cossack host is normally seen in the early modern era as having two sides: the first, the Hetmanate, or those groups fighting Polish or Turkish forces in that part of Ukraine and the Sich (or fortress) Cossacks at Zaporozhya. The latter had a tendency to be very populist, while the former was split between pro-Russian and pro-Polish wings (see below).

The broader point is that the idea of Kievan Rus and that of Moscow have little in common. The Ukrainian view, of both Orthodox and Uniat backgrounds, is that Kiev is best represented by the royal state of Galicia under Roman and Daniel, and then the decentralized Russian state of Lithuania, where the overwhelming majority of its population was Russian and Orthodox. Only after the Treaty of Lublin (1569) did Poland slowly absorb the Lithuanian elements as the Russian nobility fled to Moscow’s territory.

For historians such as Mykola Kostamarov in the 19th century to Mikhail Hrushevsky and Petro Doroshenko in the 20th, that approach has been dominant. The argument is that there is no quick transfer of the crown from Kiev to Suzdal to Moscow. That scheme of history, formalized in the 19th century by Katkov and even earlier by Karamazin, is still worthwhile and contains some truth, but it suffers by refusing to take Russian-Lithuania into account. Only in understanding, however vaguely, that scheme of history does the Ukrainian nationalist movement make any sense.

Two Ukraines, Two Hetmans: Pavel Teterya and Pavel Skoropadsky

Two figures, distant from one another in time although bearing the same title, serve to show the problematic aspects of Ukrainian nationalism and the eternal question of Ukraine’s orientation. Pavel Teterya, Cossack Hetman (monarch, war leader) of Polish Ukraine (that is, the Right Bank) died circa 1670. He was condemned by many, possibility a majority of Ukrainians at the time, for a pro-Polish outlook based on a strongly aristocratic political orientation. The Ukrainian idea for him was western, European, and can become a part of a federated structure with other ethnic groups including Poland. Ukraine was for Teterya and many like him, an integral part of Central, not Eastern Europe.

Another Hetman, Pavel Skoropadsky,[2] came to power just as Germany was signing the Versailles treaty. He is condemned equally with Teterya, but due to a pro-Russian, rather than a pro-western, stance. Neither man can be considered anti-Ukrainian in the least, but the means to ensure independence and cultural flourishing were very different. Both realized that Ukraine was too exposed to both east and west to ever be “independent.”

Teterya believed in a strong Ukrainian, Cossack nobility modeled on the Confederations within the Polish Senate. Seeking a cohesive elite, the preservation of noble and church property were essential for the maintenance of some kind of autonomy. Since a totally free independence was out of the question in the 1660s, Teterya sought a confederation of equality with Poland and Lithuania based on the Treaty of Hadiach (1658), negotiated by his predecessor, Ivan Vyhovsky.

This treaty, never made into law, described a political vision with Ukraine in a confederate union with Poland and Lithuania on the following conditions: that Orthodoxy and Catholicism be legally equal, that Polish and Jewish colonists be expelled, that Cossack nobles have the same rights as Polish ones, and that the Hetman be an office of strength, one that can quickly react to any vitiation of the agreement. This was accepted by Poland and the pro-western faction of Cossacks. The Russian invasion and the consequent Treaty of Andrusovo (1667) put an end to that, as this treaty divided Ukraine into Polish and Russian halves.

Russian agents spread the world that Teterya’s consultation with the Poles means that he wanted the Polish oligarchical system of “government” to be imposed on all Ukraine. They spread rumors that he had converted to Catholicism, which at the time was the same as to cease being Ukrainian. Most of his career was spent fending off rebellion and invasion from all sides, and he died a broken, miserable man. Even the date of his death is uncertain.

The Reds having briefly taken most of Ukraine by 1918, were overthrown by Pavel Skoropadsky (died 1945) who then ruled Ukraine as Hetman for a short time after World War I. German forces, brought into Ukraine due to Lenin’s signing of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty (1918), approved the coup and offered limited support to the Hetman. The problem was that neither Bolsheviks nor the “western” camp in Ukraine were satisfied.

In war-torn Ukraine, suffering from total dislocation, chaos, warfare, and death, Skoropadsky put Ukraine on a solid, independent footing. A former officer in the tsarist army, he mixed the best of Russian, German, and Ukrainian traditions in government. Every Ukrainian family under the Hetman was guaranteed 25 acres as a minimum which was inalienable. This land could not be taken away as debt repayment.

He created a peasant land bank that permitted peasants to buy land at subsidized rates. He created a firm monetary regime that was accepted throughout the nation for the first time. He massively increased education at all levels and created a brand new police force for the collection of taxes. Given the chaos of the age, the state under the previous Rada (that is, Council or parliament) failed to project power outside of Kiev. Skoropadsky realized that, in order for the country to survive, he needed a strong state, a rational army on the Russian model, and a navy. He succeeded on all counts.

His policies were so successful that he was able to loan the White army of General Denikin 10 million rubles and, at the same time, finance the newly independent state of Georgia. Ukraine was totally self-sufficient in food, and exported a full 35% of the total harvest in 1918. The most impressive achievement of all is that the Hetman did this only between April and December of 1918. Such clear political genius created for him numerous enemies.

Ukrainian “nationalists,” in league with both Poland and Lenin, overthrew Skoropadsky near the end of 1918, forcing him to flee to Germany. Ukraine was then governed by the ineffectual Directory, modeled after the French Revolutionary council of the same name, making the country ripe for the Red takeover. Since Symon Petliura (died 1926), the head of this “nationalist” government, refused to fight with the White forces, he went to Poland for military assistance. This absurd alliance was rejected by nearly all, since Poland had made it clear that it sought to annex much of Ukraine to itself. However, for a brief time, Poland and Petliura had defeated both Whites and Reds.[3]

Petliura was a member of the “Poltava” Masonic organization, as were several of the major Ukrainian nationalists in the 19th and early 20th century. This was also the organization that initially gave birth to the elite Decembrist movement. It is not, however, to conclude from this that Petliura was in any way “illumined” but that he was a member and recruited within its ranks.

Petliura, a Mason and ostensible Ukrainian nationalist, cooperated with the Poles against the Reds, and cooperated with the Reds against Skoropadsky, a policy almost designed to destroy the strong foundation for independence Skoropadsky had skillfully laid. These “nationalists” ensured the genocide of Ukraine that both the Poles and Reds would unleash.

The Directory was split between Petliura’s “republican” faction and V. Vinnychenko’s “communist” faction. Like Stepan Bandera (see below) Petliura was a “social nationalist,” believing in a “labor Ukraine” that is governed by both workers and peasants. The real problem was poverty: Petliura held that the present, war-torn condition of Ukraine was a breeding ground for opportunism. This means that the poor, the war-weary and the exhausted will accept any government promising some level of stability. That was not the role either the Rada or Directory was able to play. Only two factions were capable of this: Skoropadsky or the Bolsheviks.

The narrative above summarizes much about Ukrainian life. The Teterya movement was western, aristocratic, and pro-Polish. Other major figures promoting this view were Hetmans Ivan Vyhovsky and Ivan Mazepa. This is the proverbial “western” approach of Ukrainian nationalists. Petliura was clearly in this camp as well, as were most Ukrainian Masons.

The other faction is represented by Gogol or Skoropadsky. Hetmans such as Damian Mnohohrishny (d. 1703) or Ivan Briukhovetsky (d. 1688) were pro-Russian, but did not accept any form of direct rule from Moscow. Neither faction wanted anything other than an autonomous or (later) independent Ukraine, but the question was the source of identity and the means of its achievement.

Ivan Franko

The era of Skoropadsky came on the heels of Ivan Franko’s death in 1916. Franko was one of the more interesting figures in the Ukrainian national-socialist movement in the early 20th century. Constantly reassessing the nature of the state, Franko made arguments for a national form of state socialism while, in other contexts, direct condemnations of the state in general. The state, at its worst, is an unfairly privileged institution which enshrines political and economic inequality as the “common good.”

He accepted Marxism on four specific points: that dialectics, rather than linear logic, is the best way to understand the social nature of logic. The dialectical method, almost always misunderstood and mangled, is the constant interplay of the ideal and its physical manifestation. In other words, any ideal of the nation is constantly being contrasted to the daily grind of social or civic life. Movement is then the perception of the gap between the two.

Secondly, he accepted Marx’s concept of surplus value. There are two ways to view this: the first is that the act of production has to produce more value that it took to make the product. The surplus value is then what is absolutely required in order to a) replace and maintain capital and b) provide a profit for the capitalist. The profit for the owner of capital is the second element of surplus value. The two both require surplus value, but their social distinctions are very clear. The productivity of labor and its manifestation in wages is another example of how dialectical logic is superior to its Anglo-American linear and bourgeois competitor. Its significance is that, given the massive increases in productivity then and now, man need only work a few hours a week to ensure all basic needs are met.

Third, that history can be understood as being set in motion by changes in the means of production. As those profiting from capital continually use labor to better increase production in both quality and quantity, technology changes. History is then this dialectical adjustment among labor, technology and the classes that benefit from both. Finally, he accepted the idea of labor as the sole source of value, something uniting both Locke and Marx.

He rejected Marx on the questions of materialism, the domination of the state and, finally, the fact that centralization of capital has not occurred. Small business has not been destroyed in the west the way Marx had predicted. Franko held that civilization can never be reduced to matter in motion. Thought, social exchange, symbolism, ideals and hopes for the future are not produced by material things. These goods are in fact, not material at all.[4]

Marx was useful, but since he rejected the importance of ethnic ties, he was ultimately rejected. The broader point is that any true nationalism, being based on solidarity, cannot then enshrine competition in economics. For Franko, capitalism was based on three things: the demand of capital for labor at the lowest possible price, to buy raw materials and other necessaries at the lowest possible price and finally, to sell the product to the public at the highest possible price.

The modern state, however, is different from government. It is not based on solidarity, but comes into existence through force. This force is that of the wealthier elements of the population using their private security as “government.” The modern state is a machine that cannot command loyalty. The ethnic group, the folk certainly can, but the relations between the folk and the state are normally in opposition.[5] Later in his career, Franko would reject anarchism because the human race had been too brutalized by the machine. Self-government and the capitalist division of labor were not only incommensurable, but polar opposites.

Franko’s view was that independence is a necessity for both solidarity and economic reform. Colonialism was a problem in part because it automatically condemned the profits from labor in the country to be shipped out of it. Colonization made no sense unless the colonizer was getting something out of it. For Franko, the colonization of the poorer by the richer was justified by progress and social Darwinism. The only thing now included in this concept of progress was moral progress.

Franko’s view of history was progressive, but a progress based on moral liberty. Economic development is one thing, but if it does not lead to the emancipation from labor (or at least drudgery), then it is not worthwhile. Progress itself is ambiguous as it has opposing effects on specific human peoples and places. The division of labor, which is main driving force of development, together with the disparity of strength, character and abilities creates and exacerbates inequality among people. Like most nationalists, Franko argues that national belonging must be based on some sort of substantial equality. Nothing can justify the rule of a small handful of rich people and millions of the exploited poor.

Franko’s understanding of history is the growth process of human free activities to expand the limits of the possible. However, man is not abstract: this liberation from necessity and drudgery is also mostly at the level of families and communities, not individuals.

It is essential that defining community through which people able to exercise their pursuit of happiness, Ivan Franko emphasizes the nation as an integral organic and natural part of the historical process. Franko could not be clearer in his book, Beyond the Limits of the Possible:

Anything that goes beyond the frame of the nation is either hypocrisy from people of internationalized ideals which serve to provide cover for ethnic domination of one nation over another. Either that, or a sickly sentimentalism and fiction that could only serve to express one’s alienation from his own people.[6]

The left is failing, so Franko argued, because it has nothing but economic demands to hold society together. This is completely insufficient. The nation is “a natural expression of the soul.” In this sense, the nation is an essential part of one’s individual makeup. Without it, mass society develops: a gaggle of undifferentiated, mostly superfluous “voters” and “consumers.” Each person is responsible for changing himself away from the mass, it’s just that the mass is much easier: there is no freedom or identity to live up to. The nation is as much subjective as objective. He rejected anything that turned man into a machine, which is what he saw modernity doing.

The “savage” is the moral superior of the “Enlightened” English colonialist, since the Enlightenment itself came from England’s exploitation of much of the world. Progress is hence dependent on colonialism, the factory system and the ideology of materialism that turns man into a machine. The problem with Darwin was that freedom is nowhere to be found. The world is a mechanized unit. Therefore, in the human world, there must be something that does not evolve, namely our consciousness and freedom. Franko’s atheism (which waxed and waned throughout his career) was not compatible with the mechanism of Darwin’s theory. For him, the dialectic of freedom and necessity in nature always tormented his work and never found a solution.

Even worse, Franko found no home on either the “right” or the “left” in Ukraine’s complex politics of the early 20th century. As Petliura and Vinnychenko never resolved their differences, Franko’s loathing of the left was based on the fact that they rejected the nation. What sort of society could be based merely on economic self-interest? After all, that’s all socialism was claiming. Without the “national,” the “socialist” is vapid, empty economism.

Since Franko was a socialist and atheist, the Orthodox or ethnic “right” had no interest in him. Since he believed in ethnic solidarity and moral regeneration, the “left” offered nothing to him either. As a secular man, Franko remains in the minority among Ukrainian nationalists, but his poetry and prose electrified activists regardless.

Stepan Bandera and the OUN

The famous Ukrainian nationalist Stepan Bandera (died 1959) argued that the nation is a genetic unity. It is based on shared biological foundations because it is based on intermarriage and hence, genetic similarity. People normally do not marry those who do not speak their language, which in the present climate in America, is a controversial statement. This difference in genetic constitution implies that economics and life choices will differ among peoples in that they are – at their most rooted biological level – different from one another. As genetics interact with the topography and political history of a people, a real, distinct ethnos is formed.

For Bandera, the family is the first community and the primal one. This slowly develops into a sense of mutual interdependence, one founded on a sense of solidarity that becomes the root of nationhood . This is especially pronounced if the group is undergoing external pressure from a marauding foe or a rapacious empire. This solidarity is, importantly, the root of a basic egalitarianism in economic life. Labor, as Hegel argued, is national in the sense that the division of labor is the transformation of individual interest into the collective.

A common goal requires working in a climate of sacrifice and virtue. Like Ivan Franko and many others, nationalism for Bandera is a cultural unity leading to solidarity. In turn, this sense of family belonging alters the nature of work and hence, economic life. In many respects, this is an excellent ethical understanding of the folk-ethnos.

The state is essential here due to the size, power and militancy of the myriad enemies Ukraine faced in the first half of the 20th century. The state protects the ethnos and guarantees independence both economic and political. The state, as the instrument of the ethnos, guides investment and focuses resources on that which Ukraine can produce well. The point at which the state develops interests of its own, which might come close to adding some actual content to the “civic nation.” This, in truth, is just a mystification of state power without an ethnic or moral focus other than its own survival.[7]

Some object to Bandera’s insistence on ideological uniformity, seemingly innocent of the extreme levels of genocide the country had suffered. Apart from being a common and universal goal of all those with political power, Bandera sought a unified Ukraine as a means of self-defense and economic development. It was either that sort of militancy or national destruction. As of 2014, it is the latter, showing the fate of all “civic nations.”

Bandera accepted a limited state (since ethnic states are limited by definition), but one strong enough to maintain independence under the worst of conditions. While the concept irritates western minds that generally have no identity at all, the Ukrainian context fully justifies his combativeness.[8] For him, the state was a moral unity that, at its best, protects and facilitates both the material and spiritual life of the people (as opposed to a party).

The reality is that Bandera argued for a simple platform that sought primarily to fight the USSR, and only later to build a strongly integralist state that is capable of maintaining what would be a highly fragile independence. He rejected the idea that political factions, even together, represent “the people.” The nation is a unity while its negation is the party or faction which invariably represents some frustrated faction of an elite seeking power. Imperialism is when an ethnos decides to take other territories outside of itself. Mutual respect can only exist when each group remains on its traditional territory.

The nation generates its own ideological and philosophical forms. It does this by synthesizing historical experience and the cultural defense mechanisms that have been erected to deal with war, colonial occupation, genocide and poverty, all of which Ukraine has had more than its share. These are precious expressions of the human desire for freedom (though not egotistical self-assertion) and are crucial towards creating a strong foundation upon which an integral foundation can be erected.

In this sense, the nation is organic in that it is a natural outgrowth of the family and genetic principle, as well as the division of labor and the need for human beings to cooperate. Cooperation cannot occur without the nation. The role of the political or philosophical leader is to synthesize all of these into a program that is wide enough to contain many different tendencies, but narrow enough to be a source for policy.[9] Bandera argued that the moral norm is universalism, but such a view can only be expressed through the many nations that each form an aspect of it. There is no universal truth without particular truths.

Vasyl Stus and the Nature of the Motherland

Ukrainian anti-Soviet dissident Vasyl Stus (died 1985) made the claim that only in suffering is the self ever really known. Each man, in Stus’ view, creates a “shell,” a sort of protective coating that protects him from the world of the spirit. This is a defensive mechanism to avoid all that which cannot be quantified. The spirit cannot be mechanized, it cannot be reduced to slogans or ideological manifestos. Therefore, it is avoided.

On occasion, this shell is broken when suffering is imposed upon it. The practical life of the external world is exposed as disguised contempt and the self discovers it has no anchor. Suffering forces the person to become fully known, to live entirely according to internal, ideal principles rather than external results.

The world has gone mad, therefore, we are forced to turn inward. The problem is that, for many, if not most, there is nothing to turn to. There is no inner self, but rather a superficial set of masks that are changed as circumstances dictate. Here, avoiding suffering seems to be the only purpose. It comes at the expense of personhood. This is the “mass man,” one incapable of rising above the pleasure-pain nexus. They are already dead.

Looking around, Stus came to realize that “success” was identical with both mediocrity and amorality. In the Soviet Union, the most absurd policies and ideas needed to be defended and justified. The problem was the long lines of volunteers to do just that. When pain becomes that which should be avoided at all costs, amorality is the necessary consequence. He watched professional frauds loudly trumpeted by the Soviet press solely because they supported the KGB’s agenda. Talentless hacks were being called “geniuses” while the truly gifted were dying in frozen Gulag cells. Certain things do not change.

Stus is significant because he connected the symbols of home, mother, nation (motherland), nature and freedom as essentially one thing. If Jean-Paul Sartre was to “solve” the existential issue in Marxism (or his own version of socialism) then Stus, who actually lived under it, created his own “solution” – our home, our motherland. The earth sustains man in that our ancestors are buried in it while we eat what grows out of it. The soil of one’s motherland literally becomes part of our body.

Freedom cannot exist without our home. There is no abstract man, nor is there abstract freedom: it is always a service to something. For Stus, fighting the USSR was the only service he knew. In 1965, a movie was shown in Kiev, one by Sergei Paradzhanov, Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors.[10] This led to a protest against the recent spate of arrests against dissidents and Ukrainian nationalists currently taking place. Stus was one of a handful that spoke out after the screening, knowing full well what will happen to him as a result. Once he publicly denounced the KGB’s tyranny, he was removed from the university where he was pursuing its graduate studies for “systematic violations of the norms of behavior of graduate students and staff members of research institutions” (from Kostash, 1998).

The Ukrainian dissident movement during the Cold War was normally an aspect of the nationalist movement. The Ukrainian ethnos, of course, was defined in many different ways, but there was a radical disjuncture between an artificial ideology such as Marxism on the one hand, and the organic development of custom and language, on the other. The latter is fluid, having stood the test of time. The former is rigid and doctrinaire, leading of course, to the existence of the dissident.

The fact that the Gulag loudspeakers during Stus’ time there were proudly announcing the signing of the Helsinki Accords on human rights was a vivid reminder of the nature of ideology. That the Soviet Union was so insane as to beam this into a Gulag population shows just how inverted and carnivalesque things had become. The world was mad, so the only thing that a man deprived of his home could do is go inside. To enter one’s inner world is the last line of defense against insanity.

Dmytro Pavlychko

One useful but largely ignored approach to nationalism comes from the work of Dmytro Pavlychko (b. 1929). His “The Ukrainian National Idea” (2002) defines nationalism simply as the single highest form of meaningful social integration. Nationalism must be ethnic, since that is the source of culture. In addition, the struggles of a people are fundamental aspects of the folk and its subjective sense of unity. It is, as Bandera also suggests, forms of self-defense that have become ritualized as aspects of social behavior. This is the sign of a healthy society in the same sense that a strong immune system is a sign of a healthy body.

In his lecture of 2002 at the Kiev-Mohyla Academy, Pavlychko defined nationalism this way:

It is difficult to ascertain what the national idea refers to generally, because it can be understood as a complex unity containing ones mother tongue, customs, rituals, etc. . . It is the language of each people that serves as the foundation for identity, as well as its cultural and spiritual tradition. It also contains historical memory, its general mentality, its economic development, topography and general folkways. The national idea combines the essential identity of a people and the requirements for their autonomous and free development, none of which are independent of the state.[11]

The last sentence is crucial. It is the summary of his thought in general. Nationalism is the synthesis of two distinct sets of ideas, that of the ethnic identity and purpose as well as how these are protected and nurtured. The state, in traditionally German and Slavic sense, is both the nature of this unity and the form of its protection. The “state” is both the constitution of the state, that is, its traditional sense of justice, and the more formal institutions of coercion.

Historical facts have forged a unity in the face of constant pressure, violence and the very real possibility of destruction. Language too is born from the violence of history. No people on the globe have been free of foreign occupation or devastating warfare. It is these periods where one’s “otherness” is made quite clear, and thus, is the source of ethnic identity.

Each ethnos will create structures appropriate to itself, since conditions vary so radically. Law and state structures emanate from custom and history. Importantly, as soon as this connection between law and the ethnos is severed, the state loses its legitimacy. In saying that “none [of these things] are independent of the state,” he is speaking from a typically Ukrainian point of view. While national-anarchism was very common in 19th-century Ukraine, its precarious geographic position and its tough neighborhood make statelessness impossible. The state must exist for both Pavlychko and Bandera because all the custom and history in the world will not save the people from Stalin, or worse, western capitalism.

Suffering reveals the truth that happiness is not in possessions, urban “sophistication” or the bureaucratic pecking order. It is to be found in simplicity, something that has long been a part of Ukrainian ethnic thought since at least Kulish. This is what the enemies of nationalism fail to grasp: that ethnicity is born in the fires of pain and suffering. It is a function of what this writer has called elsewhere the “structures of resistance.”

The more evil the ruling system becomes, the more isolated the ethnos. The contradiction between the outer, disordered regime and the internal memory of the folk become extreme. What this can do is re-orient priorities, force people to find happiness in simplicity, and spiritualize daily life. Post-communist Ukraine, he states, works from the foundation only of money and power, the only “universal values” in the present global order.

Pavlychko’s idea is that the Ukrainian sense of self had existed as a medieval construct. Just as the Anglo-Norman shaped the subjectivity of the Gaels, the unia and Polish occupation shaped the Ukrainian idea. The Cossacks and Brotherhoods were the mainstays of the Orthodox Church under the violent thumb of the Polish nobility, and hence, these institutions are manifestations of ideas that became a part of the Ukrainian sense of self. Suffering can be cleansing and generate an awareness of reality rather than the image.

The academic hacks who condemn nationalism as “mythical” have no difficulty accepting abstract concepts such as the individual, the “global community,” or “international civilization” as perfectly real and obvious. This absurdity shows that the academic elite are tied to capital, since this is their creation. For Pavlychko, there is no such thing as an “international morality” and certainly no planetary “civilization.”

National belonging is a prerequisite for a solid doctrine of rights. Since rights do not hang in midair, they must have an origin that is not entirely reducible to mere expressions of utility or self-interest. Cosmopolitanism can generate no doctrine of rights, since it has no substantive qualities at all. The abstract “individual” or “universal values” can generate nothing concrete, since those slogans are themselves vapid and vacuous.

The distinction between truth and the world of media-generated images is what suffering can make clear. Foreign occupation and constant war forces the more civic minded of the ethnos to be isolated and impoverished. Only from this vantage point can the system be seen for what it truly is. The bureaucratic mentality is one that will serve anyone with power. Hence, these functionaries, since they benefit from the system, cannot judge it. Those who they exclude in the name of “tolerance” and “openness” see them as the frauds they are, but it is only through such exclusion can the truth be fully understood.

Darius Stoyan and Donstov’s School

In the work of Darius Stoyan, a young graduate student at Taras Shevchenko University (as of 2013), the main concern is to justify the primordial origins of the folk. He writes that the nation derives from the Latin word for “tribe.” The tribe, not self-sufficient, slowly develops into a larger confederation of similar peoples until a nation is formed. Stoyan agrees with the conception that this development is hastened by the existence of a violent enemy or foreign occupation. People suffering this way are automatically excluded as a group and hence, their resistance becomes identical with the nation.

Put differently, ethnicity has always existed, as the ancient annals of Scotland, Ireland and Greece testify. However, it was not necessarily politicized, nor part of the subjective mentality of the common folk.[12] It was merely there, a unity within which social interaction can be mutually comprehensible. The growth of the modern state and the arrogance of bureaucratic empires created the politicized version of ethnicity known as “nationalism.”

Nationalism for Stoyan is comprised of the people, living in a specific territory, forging bonds and affective ties through the constant struggle with neighbors, powerful empires and nature herself. A spiritual essence is formed that becomes the center of the ethnic consciousness and marks them off from others close by. Religion, language and economic forms further differentiate the peoples. Intermarriage becomes inevitable since families must have significant commonalities to function, similar to nations.[13] He writes,

The national concept is manifest in the supreme principle of unity and actualized through the human will determined to create unity from the raw material of the ethnic experience. It has its own values developed by the creative interaction of people living in the same area speaking the same language.[14]

Following the work of Dmytro Dontsov, the stress here is on the common will of the leadership in forging a nation. As mentioned above, however, the severe circumstances of Ukraine throughout the entirety of the 20th century – and even more so today – makes such militancy justifiable. The “raw material” (which is my translation) is the historical folk-ethnicity of the population, often taken for granted or seen as so normal that it does not require comment. A militant leadership comes into existence, as Bandera shows, at times when the very existence of the nation is at stake. Militant organization, the forcible creation of unity in the face of extermination, is the issue here. In 2014, the same conditions apply.

Nations have existed as ethno-linguistic units throughout history, as has the imperial desire to destroy such identity. Empires are defined as those entities that unify nations in the interests of the ruling group. Empires are not nations themselves, but federations answering to a common center. The point is that there is no empire without nations, and they come to define each other. There is no civic life without linguistic and cultural unities.[15]

Since a non-alienated mankind seeks solidarity, justice, protection and communal belonging (which are all tightly related), nations are a natural and normal social form. Empires, however, are the products of greed and alienation. Solidarity creates the standards for progress, success and organization that abstract theory cannot hope to provide.

Nationalism became the weapon of choice against the economic aggression of the industrial world. Industrialization is inherently international since imperial empires existed before either capitalism or industrialism. Europe after World War II became an economic, rather than a cultural entity. The Bretton Woods system demanded the rejection of nationalism and mercantilism as a condition for access to credit. The post-war order was, in part, based on the implication that only the economy has rights over the population.

In Stoyan’s analysis of nationalism, he summarizes the concept in several ways. It is a subjective principle of identity, but its objective elements are equally significant. Culture is really the manifestation of a historical unity. Culture, in other words, is a product of history acting within the variables such as geography or available resources.

Conclusions

Stus placed the ethnic question as a matter of personal suffering. Prosaic gratification takes the place of virtue and calls itself “progress.” Those fighting it are rounded up. Modern man can only think in binary terms: individual and society, while the nation and community are syntheses of these terms. Love ends in tragedy just as Teterya and Skoropadsky’s love for the motherland led to their exile. Most of all, Stus argued that tyranny and collectivization requires a mass, not real persons.

The USSR, as Stus wrote from prison, is a “twilight” world where nothing is as it seems. The senses deceive, since the term “liberty” or “equality” is everywhere affirmed, but denied everywhere in practice. Nationalism is little more than those structures erected to protect the population from irrationality, colonial rule and exploitation. Nationalism is to see the archetype in both nature and culture and seek its realization in our nominal world. Poets can do this, so long as they suffer enough. To get what one wants is to avoid the archetype, it is not needed when desires are met. Just before his 1985 murder, Stus proclaimed that his very existence was an act of protest. Socialism did not know what to do with such people except put them in prison. One was either a proletarian New Man or he was not. The “nots” ended up as “zeks.”

The nation is a community, the individual can only be collectivized. Collectives and communes are as different as individuals from persons. The individual is an ego, a person is an acculturated being. Suffering forces one to discover the fundamentals of existence. It forces self-knowledge, but it is always dangerously close to despair.

The examples detailed above have shown that both nationalism and sovereignty are the cornerstone of international politics. Even the most predatory empire needs to use these symbols when it is in their interests. Even more, as the economies of the small Slavic states continue to spin out of control, internationalism, neoliberalism and empire are seen more and more to be illegitimate and in fact, rapacious. Belarus and Russia are exceptions, showing basically healthy economies based entirely on a rejection of IMF demands.

This writer agrees that the most successful economic policies come from a strong state and ethnic unity. Examples include Japan, Russia, South Korea, Taiwan and Belarus. All of these states are examples of economic successes based around the rejection of neoliberalism and in favor of state-centered investment policies and long-term employment. The death of neoliberalism—outside of Washington and Harvard—will be missed by few.

Notes

1. The Cuman or Polovtsy were a Turkic tribe and a long-time enemy of the Slavs.

2. Sometimes, modern Ukrainian spells his name Skoropadskyi (Скоропадські). Of course, Pavel is the Slavic for “Paul.” The name is of ancient Ukrainian-Lithuanian background. He was related to the earlier Hetman of Ukraine Ivan I Skoropadsky (d. 1722) through Ivan’s daughter, who married Petro Tolstoy, producing another Ivan, from which Pavel is his grandson. This means Pavel is the great-great-grandson of Ivan I and hence, has at least a hereditary claim to the Hetmanate, something desired by the famous revolutionary Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky and many others.

3. This is sometimes called the Polish-Soviet War and lasted from 1919 to 1921. See Davies, Norman Richard (1972). White Eagle, Red Star: the Polish-Soviet War, 1919–20. Random House

10. This film was released in the US in 1967. Not only did Stus get arrested due to his support of this film and its director, but the producer himself, Paradzhanov, was sentenced to five years hard labor as a result of his work. Technically, the film was condemned due to its purely realistic and romantic approach to the Hutsul people (a Slavic tribe in the Carpathians), but it shows an ethnic group in the full flower of its customs. This was why it needed to go.

12. The concept of “subjective awareness” is a red herring. Ideology is always the domain of intellectuals and activists. Most of the common folk take their unities for granted, since much else occupies their time. Using this as an argument that nationalism is a recent phenomenon is just poor reasoning.

(Hobsbawm was a Jewish communist called an “authority on nationalism” by the entire academic establishment. Most of his work was promoting Marx and Marxism globally. He did not possess the qualifications to grasp nationalism nor the intellectual honesty to pursue it. He sought only to destroy it while downplaying his ethnic identity).